This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Imperva article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
This page would be improved by adding information about competitors or others working in the same areas of information security.
Soundbyte2 ( talk) 18:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes I agree. It sounds like an advertisement to me. Not an objective assessment. I read the article but still don't really understand what their product is! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.167.56.146 ( talk) 22:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Um, it bothers me that the Feb '14 revision had a more NPOV initial paragraph/summary altered to this buzzword crap by ImpervaWebmaster. ArtDent ( talk) 18:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
It would be nice if this page weren't treated as an advertisement. Also, this is the English-language version of Wikipedia, so following accepted rules for spelling, punctuation, capitalization, and grammar is preferable to what's here now. Dream of Goats ( talk) 22:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I will remove the PROD: the company is WP:LISTED and has been covered substantially in publications, please see for example Google books preview. The article needs to be substantially copyedited for tone and content, but the company is notable. If there are still concerns, the article can be taken to AfD for broader community input. K.e.coffman ( talk) 21:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
this article has massive sourcing issues. I checked a handful references, and every single one leads to Imperva's own web site or blog. They all are primary sources and do not meet Wikipedia's guidelines. This article is basically one big pile of original research. This is not so much a problem when it is about uncontroversial topics, but here they are used to paint a very favorable picture of a company that seems not to be supported by any reliable third party secondary source. If nobody objects I plan to condense or trim away all parts of the article that are not supported by independent reliable sources. Wefa ( talk) 18:58, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
I would like to propose adding the following to the History section:
Amlz ( talk) 07:17, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
References
Hi, I'm Tami and I work for Imperva. I intend to adhere to all Wiki policies and understand that substantial edits could fall into a conflict of interest, so I would like to get feedback on some proposed article enhancements or encourage others to add to the article. In the meantime, I'd like to make a few minor/straightforward updates. - Tamicasey ( talk) 18:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
long list of references
|
---|
I would like to consider adding our most recent acquisition and some notable research from Imperva. Here are some references that could be used: - Tamicasey ( talk) 19:00, 31 August 2018 (UTC) Imperva research Uncovering a RedisWannaMine attack [6] GITLAB: [10] Prevoty acquisition Business coverage [13] Industry analyst coverage [14] References
Other coverage Tech:
Business
|
In its current form, this article consists almost entirely of a list of business transactions of the company. This information is worthwhile, but it puts undue weight on the business operations, while the article does almost nothing to express to the reader what the company does. I don't mean to suggest that the earlier versions of the article (which contained bias and marketing language) were better, they weren't. But I believe the article should contain some information about the substance of what the company does.
Here is one suggestion, more specific than my list of references above. I've now collapsed that, I did not mean to overwhelm the talk page.) I propose adding the following short paragraph, which discusses two things Imperva has done that have drawn coverage in both mainstream and tech-oriented publications. To address the comment of Djm-leighpark above, I have no objection to including sourced information about problems or bad publicity, but I'm simply not aware of major scandals etc. To my knowledge, the company's work has generally been well received in reliable, independent news sources; I don't know that seeking out something negative for its own sake, in pursuit of balance, is an approach that would serve Wikipedia's readers well.
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Imperva has published research and software supporting anti-malware efforts. In 2016, it published a free scanner designed to detect devices infected with, or vulnerable to, the Mirai botnet. [1] [2] [3] In 2018, Imperva identified a bug in the popular web browser Google Chrome, which allowed attackers to steal information via HTML tags for audio and video files. [4] [5] [6] [7]
- Tamicasey ( talk) 18:49, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
References
{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)
Spintendo 05:30, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
The acquisition already noted in the article closed yesterday. Since this is a straightforward fact, I'll make the change to the article myself, but I'd invite other Wikipedians to take a look in case any further changes are necessary. - Tamicasey ( talk) 19:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Edit request implemented Spintendo 19:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
My name is Diana and I work for the article-subject, Imperva. I would like to request an impartial editor consider making the following changes:
Let me know if there is any way I can be of further assistance or make my requests easier to review. Thank you in advance for your time reviewing the proposed changes. Ddub21 ( talk) 18:20, 23 April 2021 (UTC)