Talk:Kaspersky Lab/Archives/2016

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Kaspersky Lab. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,124493-page,1/article.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft
I am affiliated with Kaspersky Lab. The current article has an indiscriminate list of products, a dedicated "Controversies" section (counter to WP:CRITS), language like "corporate solutions," and is just generally incomplete/outdated. I've prepared a draft for review/consideration/discussion at Talk:Kaspersky Lab/draft that would bring the article closer to GA quality standards. I realize it's not easy to compare every aspect of the current article to the proposed draft, but wanted to share it here to open discussion and invite any constructive feedback (or bold edits) on the proposed version. Happy to answer any questions or look into anything. CorporateM (Talk) 18:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Stopped reading when the second sentence in the lede was "Kaspersky's antivirus software became better known after a competitive review by Hamburg University ranked it as the most effective". The tone is too WP:NPOV and promotional. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 19:21, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and took that phrase out of the Lead, but the sources for it are as follows:
 * “In 1994 a German university noticed his work and called his toolkit perhaps the best antivirus scanner in the world. Kaspersky and his team soon started receiving licensing requests from European and American computer companies” (source -page 93, second paragraph)
 * “When AVP was tested against other commercially available antivirus software, it came in first place in both virus detection and neutralization rates, in part because…” (source)
 * “In a series of independent tests conducted by Germany’s Hamburg University, this product won top marks.” (source)
 * "Then in 1994, Hamburg University’s Computer Science Department recognized Kaspersky’s tool-kit as the best antivirus scanner in the world. The phones began ringing." (source)
 * Although the company has had its fair share of controversies, it does have a reputation for making the best-performing software in technical tests, which is the main reason for its growth. Sources seem to say that particular review is what transitioned the software from a hobby to something that was actually being sold in a more substantial way. CorporateM (Talk) 12:36, 23 October 2016 (UTC)"
 * Just the lede alone still has problems IMO. "Kaspersky and competitor BitDefender generally produce the top-performing software in independent tests and reviews, but sales of Kaspersky's software have been slow in North America, because of accusations of corrupt affiliations with Russia." (1) Like news agencies and print encyclopedias, we don't usually call out how a company's product is reviewed in the first paragraph. Bitdefender's Wikipedia page doesn't brag about its reviews in the lede; Google's lede doesn't either, even though it's in a much stronger first-place in its primary market than Kaspersky is in its primary market. (2) What's the source for "because of accusations of corrupt affiliations with Russia"? Most sources I see like or  emphasized (i) _fairly well-established_ (ii) _close_ ties to the Russian government, rather than (i) _accusations_ of (ii) _corrupt_ affiliation with the Russian government. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 20:01, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Good work so far, but there are various issues you need to tend to. I've modified the article to be more appropriate. You would be wise not to revert my changes; I'm the one responsible for the Products section. I'm not from the US so I have no "anti Russian" bias that other editors very well might. I'll go section by section and add my comments below:
 * History: You have delved too deep into the "private financial history" of the company. Usually such details (XYZ joined, XYZ left, XYZ became CEO) are not notable and are not useful to the reader. Only include major facts/milestones about the company (XYZ product was announced, XYZ major event occurred, XYZ discovery took place, etc). Don't include controversies in the History section.
 * Products/Reception: Okay but can be improved. Careful about using peacock terms like "best", "most effective", etc. Take it out if possible or some other editor might. Cut out all the star ratings, they sound like adverts.
 * Research and development: First para is confusing. Make it simple for non-technical readers to understand. (Eg. "IT security companies are often evaluated by their ability to uncover previously unknown viruses and vulnerabilities"???). Cut out all the international issues from this section (Eg "despite hesitation to purchase IT security software from a Russian company")
 * Missing sections : Independent assessments, Partnerships (these are all good content from the main article that should be added in)
 * Wonderfl (reply) 07:21, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks ! I gave the draft a quick once-through incorporating your comments above and did some copyediting. I wouldn't have gone quite the same direction: WP:CRITS encourages us to merge controversies into the narrative, rather than create a separate section; I usually see partnership sections as promotional; the malware section has a lot of sub-sections; I felt the controversy deserved a mention in the Lead and a mention by the research; the Independent Assessments section I thought was replaced by better sources in the Reception section, etc. but a lot of small preferences and style differences just vary from editor to editor and any decent page would be a vast improvement over the current. My wife comes home soon and I'll be crammed this week, but I'll try to circle back to this next weekend to do anything you'd like me to work on. I think either version of the draft looks great. CorporateM (Talk) 22:02, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Good work. I see you followed my guidance to the tee, which is surprising at the least. I agree that the malware section has a lot of sub-sections. Perhaps you could try using semicolon instead of Level 3 headers. Alternatively remove the L3 headers and file all the discoveries under a single header. Wonderfl (reply) 05:44, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm happy with your draft; I therefore replaced the main article. I moved the virus lab image to the infobox since I think it looks better there, but the infobox really begs for a professional company building photo. Regards. Wonderfl (reply) 06:18, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I've sent a ping to my contact at Kaspersky to see if we can get an HQ image for the infobox. There's also a photo of Eugene Kaspersky here. It seems founder photos are often put in the History section. CorporateM (Talk) 14:34, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments on Lead
I think the Lead is a bit long and promotional. A few notes:

1. Lists and rankings An essay I wrote at WP:ORGLISTS has some good advice (I think) on when to include (and mostly when not to include) being included in a list or ranking. While at least one or two market-share rankings are critical in the Lead where available, it seems we have a whole paragraph devoted to lists and rankings. Also, many of those rankings are based purely on revenue, whereas the copy of the Wikipedia article does not indicate as such. I'd suggest something like as follows: "Kaspersky Lab ranks is the fourth largest cybersecurity vendor globally in the global ranking of antivirus vendors .[3] It was the first Russian company to be included into the rating of the world’s leading software companies, called the Software Top 100 (79th on the list, as of 6/29/2012). Kaspersky Lab is ranked 4th in Endpoint Security segment according to IDC data for 2010.[4] According to Gartner, Kaspersky Lab is currently the third largest vendor of consumer IT security software worldwide and the fifth largest vendor of Enterprise Endpoint Protection. Kaspersky Lab has been named a 'Leader' in the Gartner Magic Quadrant for Endpoint Protection Platforms.[5]"


 * Can remove the first two, keep the Magic Quadrant. Wonderfl (reply) 08:32, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

2. Global Research The Global Research team is significant and their uncovering of espionage is one of the things Kaspersky is best known for, but the second sentence here is redundant with the first and the rest focuses on details not suitable for the Lead. "The Kaspersky Global Research and Analysis Team (GReAT) has discovered sophisticated espionage platforms such as Equation Group and the Stuxnet worm. Various covert government-sponsored cyber-espionage efforts were uncovered through their research. Kaspersky also publishes the annual Global IT Security Risks Survey.[6] As of 2014, Kaspersky's research hubs analyze more than 350,000 malware samples per day.[7]"


 * Why hide the cyber-espionage efforts? The malware count can be taken out but is an interesting trivia, I thought. Wonderfl (reply) 08:32, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

On an unrelated note, the Partnerships section appears to cite primary sources exclusively, includes a long list of partners, and includes promotional sponsorships. If consensus is that the section should be kept, I'll work on a less promotional version. CorporateM (Talk) 14:26, 20 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Size ranking among software companies is interesting and informative enough to keep in, maybe shorten to "Kaspersky is the largest software company in Russia, and the 79th largest software company in the world." Rolf H Nelson (talk) 04:02, 23 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why you all want to shorten the lead. Looks fine to me. Wonderfl (reply) 08:30, 23 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Wonderfl. If you take a look at the general guidance at WP:LEADLENGTH, I think it might help you see where we're coming from. It doesn't set down a strict policy on the Lead's length, but as a general rule for an article of this size (15-20 thousand characters), a 2-3 paragraph Lead is recommended. 4 paragraphs is usually reserved for much larger and more important articles.


 * Regarding Rolf's point on the controversy, WP:LEAD also says the Lead should "include[] mention of significant criticism or controversies," so long as we do not "giv[e] undue attention to less important controversies in the lead section." WP:LEAD also says "the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources." Often putting controversies in the Lead is a sign of point-of-view pushing from advocates, but in this case it's a big part of their reputation (among Americans at least) and probably deserves at least a neutral mention.


 * Thanks again for participating in discussion! The article is definitely in much better shape than it was. Best regards. CorporateM (Talk) 18:31, 25 November 2016 (UTC)