Jump to content

Talk:BonziBuddy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rewrite

[edit]

I have radically stubbed the article, and cleared out the old discussion. The article was, quite frankly, an embarassment to us. Extremely bold negative claims, backed up with no sources. Quite frankly, several of the people who contributed to the article should be banned from coming near a keyboard until they have learned to engage in proper encyclopedia writing. Well. Enough of my ranting. The deal is: this article needs to be rewritten, with very careful line-by-line sourcing to legitimate mainstream publications for every claim. The claims should not be made BY wikipedia, but should instead be ATTRIBUTED to the sources.--Jimbo Wales 11:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why cant I see the history of the talk page for BonziBuddy?..I thought the history of all the Wikipedia articles was to be saved good or bad..Embrasment to Wikipedia or not the history should not be changed... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.157.224.251 (talk) 14:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, even though it was not sourced, from an empirical view some of it was "correct." I'll do the attribution as you wish, but it is going to look kind of nasty :).

(I'd like to find some "positive" sources as well, but nearly all are info on how bad it is, how to remove it... HEH!)

Usual source list
  • "Got Spyware? Step-By-Step Solutions For The Most Invasive Spyware & Adware". Smart Computing. April 2005. Retrieved 2006-09-04.
    • Contains some info, mostly on what bad things it does, points to an even more involved article on the nuts n' bots of how to remove it apparently...
  • http://www.consumerwebwatch.org/dynamic/privacy-investigations-categories-spy.cfm
    • Consumer reports webwatch... puts it in with the dreaded GATOR.... heh :).
  • http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/bonzi/040217compbonzi.pdf#search=%22%22bonzibuddy%22%22
  • http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2004/02/bonziumg.htm
    • Court case stuff - second one Bonzi Software pays 75,000 out for "COPPA Civil Penalty Charges"....
  • http://www.cs.vu.nl/~vanvugt/Articles/FinalVersionHoornVanvugt.pdf#search=%22%22The%20Role%20of%20Social%20Norm%20in%20User-engagement%20and%20Appreciation%20of%20the%20Web%22%22
    • Apparently an acedemic paper measuring social reaction/empathy to the bonzi buddy... no, I'm not kidding...
  • http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,1111245,00.asp
    • ExtremeTech article about aftercase fallout, general info...
  • http://www.clickz.com/showPage.html?page=2212851
    • A bit on the 2003 case mentioned in Bugtrio's version - would be nice to get like CNet etc. for more authority instead...

RN 04:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made some changes.The application is spyware,that's without doubt.But you can change or revert it if there are mistakes in new article.--Bugtrio | Talk 13:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not that there were mistakes, it is that it was mostly unreferenced, and a couple of the referenced claims were not backed up by the sources ("well-known" spyware, but the source didn't say that plus without attribution it means wikipedia makes the claim). RN 22:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Spyware guide proves the claim about how it changes the browser, and also where is eTrust entry? I think it's better than Spyware Guide's report on this program.In the registry section the code that program places changes the homepage,I mean you can replace it with SG's link.

But it's not a problem, I will try to find some other references about it and place them into the article with suitable sentences.--Bugtrio | Talk 23:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is looking pretty good so far! We want the article to be neutral, and I am afraid that the neutral facts will be pretty negative no matter what we do. That's perfectly fine. The most important thing is that, as we have done so far in the rebuild, we cite sources in a serious manner, we don't go beyond what the sources say, we make no difficult claims ourselves. So far, so good, this is looking like a model rewrite as far as I can see. Thank you! --Jimbo Wales 21:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on BonziBuddy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:05, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should Bonzi's status as an internet meme be mentioned in the article?

[edit]

In early 2014, BonziBuddy experienced a massive leap in popularity due to a man from a livestream featuring the program among various other adware and malware programs. Should it be mentioned in the main article, or not?

If I were in charge, then yes. But alas, since it's not in the mainstream media, it's not fair game here on Wikipedia. DatGuyonYouTube (talk) 18:49, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be. It deserves a mention in this article, although I don’t think it would useful to talk too much about it. After all, it has a status as an internet meme. Not enough to justify its own article, but at least a mention would be good. The only problem is I don’t think there would be any good sources to back up that it’s an internet meme. 24.126.165.174 (talk) 08:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

--24.176.159.176 (talk) 20:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Shouldn't there be a "In Popular Culture"/similar section about Bonzis popularity as an Internet Meme? Looking through the edit history it looks like there was a "Status as an Internet Meme" section at one point, but it was removed for being unsourced. I'll remake it with sources at some point if nobody objects :) --Gunnaaa (talk) 09:52, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:06, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:BonziBuddy&oldid=1248302063"