Talk:Computer security

Article Cleanup
I am planning on fixing grammar and style issues and cleaning up the article in general. If you disagree with with any of the content removal, please let me know. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.250.65.158 (talk • contribs) 13:13, July 17, 2007 (UTC) Can you be more specific about changes Tonymetz 💬  16:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That's an IP post from 17 years ago... i just added a sig so it will archive. Meters (talk) 20:23, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Information as unreliable
I feel Computer Security in using Wikipedia is unreliable. With a breach of IBM in Colorado healthcare due to some CLOP ransomware gang in Russia. Could be the Shadowcrew again involving hackers Russian and Cuban like Albert Gonzalez. People who developed database management and IBM software are being targeted as individuals as being the problem is wrong to do. INFORMATION gets proliferated more as a weapon of mass destruction. They have terrorists and serial killer Biographic data on wikipedia and this is why threats exist. Terrorists using Wikipedia as advantage. 65.163.112.196 (talk) 12:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC)


 * See Security through obscurity.
 * Everything on Wikipedia is (or at least should be) based on publicly available sources, available to anyone and everyone. Perhaps you are thinking of Wikileaks? (which has no connection with Wikipedia). 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:06, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Create new article for cybersecurity
I suggest creating a new article to separate cybersecurity form computer security, the justification and explanation of why it is different is in the suggested article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Cybersecurity

But in summary, both concepts can be improved having separate articles for Computer Security and cybersecurity, because cybersecurity includes the protection of elements and processes which are not technology but depend on technology, as society depends more and more on technology. Pcoronaf (talk) 22:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Changing order and prioritising the general public
Hi everyone. I've recently been contracted to do some editing work on Wikipedia articles, and this is one of the articles my employers would like improving.

(TLDR; I'm trying to make the article easier and more accessible for the general public to help improve their own computer security, so some topics may be moved around.)

I've recently completely some research for my master's degree on making Wikipedia more easy to understand and readable. The research includes surveying over 500 members of the general public on their responses to climate change articles on Wikipedia. The results suggest that both readability scores on Wikipedia are detrimental to people's understanding of the information, and in some cases can lead to people mistrusting the information. I'm looking to implement some of these findings into this article - in short, improve the readability of certain sections.

As well as readability, I also want to better prioritise information which suits the general public. Both the order of the article and the way advice is discussed on this article is slightly counterintuitive to aiding the general public on increasing their knowledge about computer security. Although computer security is a broad topic, topics that are within the realm of control or importance to the general public are mainly limited to protection and safety. This isn't prioritised in this article and is hidden amongst various subsections.

Over the next few weeks I will test moving some things around in the article with the goal of making the article more productive and easy to navigate for the general public. I hope to maintain the overall tone and information of the article, but simultaneously make it more helpful for the general public.

Please be free to comment on any of my edits if you believe it is changing the article in any way that you see unfit, and I would be more than happy to discuss your comments. Theobrad (talk) 11:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Removal of 'Importance of Cyber Security' section
In the vein of condensing the article: keeping the information concise and in the right section, I believe this section (which is currently at the bottom of the article) may be slightly redundant following the rest of the information. With all respect to the author, as the section nicely summarises some of the points, unless it is placed high and condensed a bit as a kind of "summary" of issues, I don't think it should remain on its own at the bottom.

Would love to hear people's thoughts.


 * 1) As much of it is reiterated elsewhere, should it be removed?
 * 2) Or should it stay and be put higher up. I believe the article could do with more clear language (as this uses) and more straightforward explanations of things for the general public.

Theobrad (talk) 12:46, 29 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Remove that section. It violates Wikpedia's style guide in several ways and was added by a blocked user. —Dexxor (talk) 12:06, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * In that case, you might have removed yourself (as I have just done). See WP:BMB, revert all contributions by blocked editors, good or bad. (But, in response to, yes it was redundant.) --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks you all for your help! Please feel free to give input on any edits I make it the future! Theobrad (talk) 09:53, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Well you can just WP:BEBOLD if you don't mind that it might be reverted and subjected to WP:Bold, revert, discuss cycle. My generally approach is only to use the talk page for proposals that might be controversial as it is usually easier to negotiate through a difficult issue there. But you often have to propose a draft anyway, just to be clear what the the proposal is. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:38, 4 December 2023 (UTC)