Talk:AV-Comparatives

Edit request: outdated/dead citations and update on recent test coverage

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

As disclosed on my user page, I am employed by AV-Comparatives. In accordance with WP:COI and WP:PAID, I am not editing the article directly and am requesting the following changes:

1. Fix two dead PC Magazine links (footnotes 1 and 5) by marking them as dead:

Change:

To:

2. Fix the redirected PDF link (footnote 3):

Change:

To:

3. Fix the dead Zukunftsstiftung link (footnote 12):

Change:

To:

4. Fix the second dead PC Magazine link (footnote 5) and add a sentence on recent independent press coverage:

Change: The Real World Protection Test framework was recognized by the "Standortagentur Tirol" with the 2012 Cluster Award for innovation in computer science.

To: The Real World Protection Test framework was recognized by the "Standortagentur Tirol" with the 2012 Cluster Award for innovation in computer science. Independent technology press has continued to cover AV-Comparatives' ongoing test series; for example, BetaNews reported on the organization's 2025 Consumer Summary Report, which evaluated 19 Windows security products across real-world protection, malware detection, and performance criteria.

Happy to provide further detail or sourcing if needed. Thank you for reviewing.

References

TommiUhl (talk) 09:55, 8 September 2026 (UTC) TommiUhl (talk) 09:55, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

 Not done. Wikipedia is written by human beings. See also WP:COI for instructions and guidance. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 12:07, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi,

I disclosed potential COI in my bio as well as in the request, if this is what the second part refers to.

The first part of the "answer" is completely out-of-bound, IMHO. Yes, an LLM helped me guide through the obstacles that editing WP provides, as well as make sure that the language quality is up to par, since I'm not a native speaker, but first-hand source of the factually correct information. That doesn't mean the content of the request was against any guidelines as I understand it.

I wanted to do this factually correct while navigating the odds this plattform provides. The intent was to help Wikipedia display factually correct and current information. And in order to do so the LLM helped me find sources and keep the requested format by Wikipedia.

Instead, this request has been closed and it was opted to keep dead links and outdated info. I don't think that this adds value nor that it keeps Wikipedia's relevance high. If LLM assisted content or request creation leads generelly to a rejection, then I'd ask to be put into contact with a mentor or other actual help, rather than a blunt "Wikipedia is written by human beings.". Thank you.

Cheers,

Tommi TommiUhl (talk) 10:30, 9 September 2026 (UTC)