Talk:Kaspersky Lab/Archives/2019

Lead

I noticed @Crossswords: created a Kaspersky bans and allegations of Russian government ties page and accordingly implemented WP:Summary Style here on the main page. I'm wondering if the Lead should still have so much on the topic now that it is a relatively small part of this page. I also noticed stuff in the Lead that clearly does not belong, like Gartner naming Kaspersky a "leader." IMO, the Lead could be improved by cutting it in half.

As previously disclosed, I am affiliated with Kaspersky. CorporateM (Talk) 13:29, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I believe the idea of moving this section into a separate article wasn't a good one. I don't get how it was justified. Neither of three messages that introduced movement clarify this: one, two and three. DAVRONOVA.A. ✉ ⚑ 12:11, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't get it either. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 20:38, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Pinging @Crossswords: who made the move, in case nobody else already contacted them on their user page. CorporateM (Talk) 13:37, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

No mention of Russian arrests?

What about the 2017 Russian rubber hose decrypting case, arresting Ruslan Stoyanov and later the FSB guys? Zezen (talk) 12:40, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

@Zezen: According to Russian sources he was arrested on espionage charges and "treason. Though it easily may turn out to be untrue due to the closed court trial and unfair justice. Allegedly he turned over information about hackers who hacked DNC servers. Here is | a Russian article on that. DAVRONOVA.A. ✉ ⚑ 12:13, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Ta, User:Alexander_Davronov! I had read some technical background in his very own blog just before he was taken down for that. Anyhow: let us elaborate on that here.

Spasiba & pozdravljaju!

Yet Another Example of Wikipedia’s Built-In Bias

NPOV is MIA as usual. Readers of this article learn that “[s]ince 2015 Kaspersky was alleged to have close ties to the Russian government by various western media outlets, and finally the US government itself.”

Now take a look at the article for Amazon, an American tech company that regularly collaborates or otherwise cooperates with the NSA, CIA and other USG agencies and departments. You will not find a word like ‘alleged’ (implying, in the Kaspersky article, that a Russian company working with the Russian government is akin to a crime or a sinister transgression of universally established norms).

You will not find a phrase like ‘close ties’ (a term that implies a conflict of interest, or a corrupt relationship, between influential groups, governments and organizations, e.g. “the article alleged close ties between the casino’s owners and the state body regulating gambling establishments”).

Here is the exact same biased and loaded sentence from this article that I quoted above, but with ‘Amazon’ replacing ‘Kaspersky’, ‘Western media’ changed to ‘unaligned media’ and ‘United States government’ swapped out for ‘Chinese government’:

“Since 2015 Amazon was alleged to have close ties to the United States government by various unaligned media outlets, and finally the Chinese government itself.”

That would never ever fly because it just screams bias, implied assumptions and value judgements and deploys manipulative language. But Wikipedia has no problem whatsoever with that propaganda sentence when it implicitly assumes that the United States is ethically superior to its rivals and therefore its value judgements are valid even when it promotes a blatant “do as I say, not as I do” double-standard.

Wikipedia has a blatant western bias and if the organization valued honesty and integrity, it would state that fact up front. The fact that it does not, and indeed pretends that it is neutral or “objective”, suggests it is itself a cog in America’s propaganda dissemination system. User2346 (talk) 13:37, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

@User2346: The overall balance and tone of the article has swung back and forth over time due to the stark contrast in perspective between American and international sources/editors. I disagree with your criticisms of language choice. "Alleged" is on-target since the accusations are unproven. However, in my opinion the Lead focuses excessively on controversial recent events and the sentence "various western media outlets" begs for a similar sentence on what someone besides Western media says. I am affiliated with Kaspersky and have a disclosed conflict of interest, so I won't make any changes - just commenting. CorporateM (Talk) 16:05, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Have to agree. Not even a mention of how Karsperky actually helped the NSA in the past. Prinsgezinde (talk) 13:02, 9 October 2019 (UTC)