Talk:Web beacon/Archives/2015

References in article
The references in the main text of the article are not reproduced at the bottom. 164.54.145.111 19:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding paragraph 1, sentence 5, which states that the web bug raises privacy concerns, someone has indicated that a citation is needed. I would suggest the following: Prof. Mark (talk) 16:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Move to Web beacon : Requested move 24 July 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. Armbrust The Homunculus 14:22, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Web bug → Web beacon – 'Becon' is the more commonly used term. See discussion Talk:Web_bug Deku-shrub (talk) 12:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Support move. The WP:COMMONNAME is web beacon. Glrx (talk) 20:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

poor quality article
Most of this article is original or uncited research. Unsourced opinions like "Web bugs are like bugging but not as obtrusive" are given. Other contributions are given in a conversational, teaching tone, which increases the sense of original research. "Consider for example a company, blah blah blah." The citations are mostly VERY out of date for a technology that has grown enormously during the last 15 years and is of particular interest over the last couple of years with much general discussion of privacy online, surveillance state, effect of Facebook, etc. on expectations of privacy in younger generations, wiretapping without warrant. Embarrassingly, the article name does not match how the subject of the article is referred to throughout the text. (Note: I do improve Wikipedia, but I am not the right person to improve this article.)74.105.48.225 (talk) 02:37, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Purely Opinion?
I think this paragraph should be removed entirely:

"Web bugging is analogous to conventional bugging, but is not as invasive or intrusive. The term should not be confused with the more benign web spider, nor with the more malicious computer worms."

This seems to be a matter of opinion rather than fact. By who's definition is web bugging less intrusive? (For example, only a tiny number of individuals are actually bugged each year - surely a tiny, tiny fraction of the total number of individuals who are web bugged.) 185.55.60.122 (talk) 09:03, 23 September 2015 (UTC)