Talk:ZoneMinder

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on ZoneMinder. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070929011516/http://www.zoneminder.com/forums/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=3295 to http://www.zoneminder.com/forums/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=3295
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090411192221/http://viktorpetersson.com:80/open-source/zoneminder-virtual-appliance to http://viktorpetersson.com/open-source/zoneminder-virtual-appliance

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

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 00:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Shinobi and other external links

I removed recently added external link leading to website of another "CCTV" solution called "Shinobi" (advert-like comparison of features of both ZoneMinder and Shinobi). My edit was reverted by the same editor, who added link to Shinobi website. Is Shinobi important enough for the ZoneMinder topic to be included in the body of text or in the external links? Is it really necessary to have 10 external links? I propose to leave only 2-3 external links and mention only those "competitors" with their own Wikipedia article, or - if there is no such article yet - those mentioned in reliable source. Eg. Shinobi would be referenced by reliable source and not by link to its website. Pavlor (talk) 07:53, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

The user moeiscool22 is Moe Alam the developer of ShinobiCCTV, thus there is a conflict here. That and the spamming all over the rest of the internet. 92.27.36.149 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:40, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Negitive Actors

This wiki article is under repeated attack.. Half the article, what little it is, is about negative and outdated issues from almost ten years ago. Future edits should be to discuss and provide complete information, not half truths. EditorAtLargeThatIsLarge (talk) 02:11, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

@EditorAtLargeThatIsLarge: I rewrote this article during AfD (discussion about deletion: [1]). I used reliable sources (Wikipedia has its own concept of "notability" that requires quite high quality of sources) and tried to balance pros and cons (Wikipedia is not advert board...). As far as I see it, coverage of ZoneMinder in this article is highly positive, with only minor negative points mentioned (documentation, old security issue). Note if you have some connection to ZoneMinder, you should disclose it. Pavlor (talk) 05:17, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Security vulnerability history

I see there is some effort to remove reliably sourced history of ZoneMinder from this article. Are there any reliable sources discussing recent state (features, security, uses etc.) of ZoneMinder? Claim that the current version has no such flaws (well, this was only a minor issue even back then) is probably true, but there should be reliable sources supporting this view - and these are hard to find for such an application of borderline notability. I think we should retain history and expand the article with never sources (if available). Your opinion? Pavlor (talk) 15:04, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@Pavlor: This source, while properly cited, does not necessarily mean that it is a credible source as anyone could write a similar report against any software. I am not trying to argue whether or not the issues in the report were valid at the time nor whether or not they have been fixed - I have no idea - but just because a bug report was filed on an obscure website doesn't make it valid or important. It is atypical to see singular bug reports against software listed on their Wikipedia articles; it seems rather unencyclopedic to me. Their have likely been many more bug reports failed with some fixed and some not against zoneminder and I don't think it is up to Wikipedia to try to stay current on this. A more useful bit of information might be a link to the projects bug tracer, but again that is not typical. I suggest removal of this unimportant bug tracker item cited from an obscure website by a person who may or may not be an expert on the topic. Tommycw1 (talk) 16:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Heise.de is not an obscure website, it is an online portal for major German tech-related magazines (eg. ct, iX). This news item is one of the few articles in mainstream media covering ZoneMinder. Pavlor (talk) 16:14, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Heise.de is source #9. Source #8 is the actual bug report and the part cited for the actual sentence in question and what I am calling obscure. The Heise article actually refers to the same bug report that is Source #8 (https://seclists.org/bugtraq/2008/Aug/243).

Well, I removed that bug report as both sentences can be cited by heise.de. Pavlor (talk) 17:04, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

OK - that sounds good, however that doesn't change my original stance. Heise.de has an 8 sentence article that references a bug report on an obscure website. 3 of those 8 sentences are a restatement of the bug report itself. It is not typical for an article on software to reference something like this and does not make encyclopedic worthy news to me. I suggest removal of this unimportant bug tracker item cited from an obscure website by Heise.de - originally reported by a person who may or may not be an expert on the topic.

ZoneMinder is an application of borderline notability, no wonder the few mainstream sources outside of the Linux bubble offer only a mere mentions. If there were many reliable sources with broad in-depth coverage of ZoneMindeer, then such small news would be undue. However, this is not the case (assuming not much changed since the last AfD) and perception of the article subject in mainstream source(s) is certainly due for this article. Do you know other reliable sources we can use to flesh-out the article (and possibly shift that heise.de news into the undue territory)? Pavlor (talk) 17:40, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed on the nature of Zoneminder and the reasons for it not having a lot of 'main stream media' coverage. Frankly most Linux only applications suffer for the same reason. Most of what I see are actually youtube videos of people comparing zoneminder to other applications like Shinobi. I don't imagine we're likely to every see a main stream media article covering open source video surveillance apps - especially those in the Linux only world. Its just a niche in a niche. That being said, that Heise.de article isn't even really an article; with a 2 sentences on introductions, 3 sentences directly quoting the bug report and 3 offering a suggestion to use .htaccess I wouldn't consider that main strae media coverage either. I still suggest we remove it, it just seems too insignificant to be worth mentioning.

Apparently, without such an security issue, mainstream media would not even care back then. If there aren´t many reliable sources covering ZoneMinder, we must use what we have available. In this sense, this information seems to be too important to be removed (at least until more good sources surface). Note this article was on a brink of a deletion before, removing reliable source discussing some issue would smell of COI, which is a red flag for many Wikipedia editors and could lead to unwelcome outcome in any future deletion discussion. Pavlor (talk) 06:12, 12 July 2020 (UTC)