Misplaced Pages

Talk:Conduit toolbar: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:16, 14 August 2013 editJeremy112233 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users25,045 edits →Browser Hijack← Previous edit Revision as of 16:46, 14 August 2013 edit undoEdgarde (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers19,109 edits →Browser Hijack: Let's have a look at these.Next edit →
Line 72: Line 72:


:::: Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't make them non-impartial :) For the forum, see ], and as for ''First Arkansas News'', I'm not sure a counts as an editorial board. Given that, are you still certain that ''First Arkansas News'' is a valid source? I don't really see it as more than a blog, and under the weblogs category the publication would not qualify as an RS. See ]. ] (]) 16:14, 14 August 2013 (UTC) :::: Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't make them non-impartial :) For the forum, see ], and as for ''First Arkansas News'', I'm not sure a counts as an editorial board. Given that, are you still certain that ''First Arkansas News'' is a valid source? I don't really see it as more than a blog, and under the weblogs category the publication would not qualify as an RS. See ]. ] (]) 16:14, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

:::::Your attempt to ding the Anvisoft link as a "forum" is the reason WP:IAR exists. That link is not (per your WP:RSEX links) "anonymous commentary", it's Anvisoft staff (conspicuously labeled as such). Are you proposing that they cannot be used on Misplaced Pages because of the software on which they publish their information?
:::::* {{cite web | title = How to Remove Conduit Search Toolbar and search.conduit.com redirect? | publisher = Anvisoft | date = 2013-06-07 | url = http://forums.anvisoft.com/viewtopic-45-5152-0.html | accessdate = 2013-08-13}}
:::::As for the ''First Arkansas News'' it's clearly a small news site, published on a blog. While the lack of an editorial board makes certainly this is a sub-optimal source, this is also not anonymous commentary. If you can find a better link documenting that Conduit is a tool for creating toolbars that deceptively install a browser hijacker and are by design difficult to remove, please contribute.
:::::* {{cite web | title = So long, uTorrent | publisher = First Arkansas News | date = 2010-12-15 | url = http://firstarkansasnews.net/2010/12/so-long-utorrent/ | accessdate = 2013-04-30}}
:::::However, I fear the best I'll get will be a tag-team response from a certain other editor. / ]<small> ] ]</small> 16:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:46, 14 August 2013

WikiProject iconIsrael Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Project Israel To Do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconCompanies Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Companies To-do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

This page was previously vandalized, and has now been restored back to its previous version.

Conduit page is advert for spam toolbar product

It seems very much that this article is no more than a brochure promoting a company that creates aggressive advertising software, (often described as a trojan) and the article was created and is being maintained and sanitized by someone associated with it. The article, if not simply deleted, should be reviewed. Looking at edits from Beobjectiveplease (talk · contribs) it seems he has a similar role in puffing up and removing criticism from articles on a group of software companies, including Opera Solutions, WiO, Wibiya... Barsoomian (talk) 15:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Barsoomian and I think it would be better to delete the article.--Fox1942 (talk) 05:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I disagree; this looks like a neutrally-worded simple article with plenty of independent sources. Note user:Beobjectiveplease has not edited this article since June, so can hardly be classed as a gatekeeper. --Dianna (talk) 05:42, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
There isn't anything more Beobjectiveplease needs to do, as it is already a perfect brochure for the company. Barsoomian (talk) 06:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I've had a go at editing the article; as far as I'm concerned it's now categorically not a brochure for the company. (Of course, if you want to go find a little sourced criticism of the company and add that, that would be cool too.) - Jarry1250  12:13, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I disagree, it is still an advertisement for the company.--Fox1942 (talk) 17:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Explain? What does an ideal encyclopedia article on a company look like if not this? - Jarry1250  22:22, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Coming through the Feedback Request Service - article looks fine. If you want to add more critical material, go ahead and look for it. Also, thanks for being bold Jarry1250! II | (t - c) 22:44, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
The problem here is not wether the article is biased or not, the problem is that it is untrue. The software is a trojan and illegal in most countries including mine. Misplaced Pages should not be used to endorse criminal behaviour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.208.139.225 (talk) 15:37, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
I looked at this yesterday, and the product that causes problems is actually from search.conduit.com, not conduit.com. The names are very similar, but they do not appear to be related. -- Dianna (talk) 16:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
The way DNS works is that the domain search.conduit.com is necessarily owned by the owners of the domain conduit.com. It's a subdomain. This company, owned by Ronen Shilo, is the source for misleading Google Adwords advertisements that have a large DOWNLOAD NOW button that lead you to think you're downloading something else than a toolbar such as pushed by wiseconvert.com. Wouldn't a neutral article indicate such a thing? Garbage like this is becoming the demise of Misplaced Pages; why do you protect it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.22.8 (talk) 21:32, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
If you have some information with reliable sources that you wish to add to the article, please file an edit request, and someone will review it. I have checked repeatedly and can find nothing online that backs up your claims that their stuff is malware. — Dianna (talk) 00:21, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Search.conduit.com is actually non-malicious hijacker that often bundled with freeware/shareware to install its toolbar and hijacker the browsers by changing the homepage and redirecting
"Avisoft Staff", Anvisoft Forums

http://forums.anvisoft.com/viewtopic-45-956-0.html / edg ☺ ☭ 10:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

NOTE

The page should be rewritten to not be like an ad for spam. Zakawer (talk) 12:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I've said it before and I'll say it again: rewriting is not the problem here. The problem is the material available. If people could only find reliably-sourced criticism, we can add it. - Jarry1250  14:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
If you could point out any specific sections that have an advertorial tone, I would be happy to try and re-write them. --Dianna (talk) 15:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Is this material usable as criticism? http://malwaretips.com/blogs/remove-conduit-search-virus/ Dpatuwo (talk) 20:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
No; it is a blog. Blogs are self-published sources and are thus not considered to be reliable sources.-- Diannaa (talk) 00:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I think this page should be changed a little and not deleted. So they could put something about it spreading without permission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.203.78.1 (talk) 12:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

article is like advertising for the company

the article is like advertising for the company and doesn't mention unwanted addon bars that are installed on your browsers and possible problems that they bring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.152.214.255 (talk) 23:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

If you have some criticisms of the software, backed up by reliable sources, then we can add something. At present the article does not read like an advertisement for the company, and as an administrator on this wiki, I will continue to watch and make sure it stays that way. Conversely, criticisms added by PR firms or other parties will be kept out of the article, unless supported by reliable third party sources. -- Dianna (talk) 14:21, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --86.181.131.186 (talk) 13:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

How can there not be a "criticism" subsection in an entry on a company like this?

This is rediculous. Obviously, this company is investing A LOT in keeping its reputation and hiding the fact that what they do is actually malware. I agree that this is open for discussion, but there must at least be some kind of reference to the fact that in MANY places/review Conduit is presented as malware. Just google "conduit". Rediculous! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.77.108 (talk) 13:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

As has been said many times before, if there is legitimate criticism in the form of an actual news article then add it. Otherwise there are no sources to support the criticisms, even if valid. Jeremy112233 (talk) 13:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Browser Hijack

I added this sentence, which was then reverted. Is there a problem with these sources? We have this toolbar listed on the browser hijacking page.

The toolbars have been described as a browser hijack and are difficult to remove.
  1. "So long, uTorrent". First Arkansas News. 2010-12-15. Retrieved 2013-04-30.
  2. "How to Remove Conduit Search Toolbar and search.conduit.com redirect?". Anvisoft. 2013-06-07. Retrieved 2013-08-13.

--Terrible Tim (talk) 23:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I think these are both adequate sources for this statement. It is unfortunate that there is so much trepidation about identifying these clearly unwanted nuisances. / edg ☺ ☭ 11:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Okay I'm reverting this. The "forum" is absolutely not an RS. First Arkansas News is not a valid news source by any stretch of the imagination. It is a blog with no independent editorial board--a must for news sources. In addition you've proven no COI here and given no explanation for why an article worked on by dozens of editors reads like a news release. We've had a lot of problems here with people trying to turn the Conduit page into an attack page on the company, and all editors on this talk page have been open to the page having some "Conduit is a hijacker" content if it can be sourced. But at this point it still cannot, as no legitimate news agency has reported such information.Jeremy112233 (talk) 13:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
What you're calling a "forum" (your quotes) and "absolutely not an RS" is written by the staff of an anti-malware product that seems to have been recommended by PCMag and C|Net. And while First Arkansas News seems to have modest credentials, it does in fact seem to be a news site. I don't believe your objection under WP:RS is valid. And I do not believe you are an impartial editor. / edg ☺ ☭ 13:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't make them non-impartial :) For the forum, see here, and as for First Arkansas News, I'm not sure a list of freelance writers counts as an editorial board. Given that, are you still certain that First Arkansas News is a valid source? I don't really see it as more than a blog, and under the weblogs category the publication would not qualify as an RS. See here. Jeremy112233 (talk) 16:14, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Your attempt to ding the Anvisoft link as a "forum" is the reason WP:IAR exists. That link is not (per your WP:RSEX links) "anonymous commentary", it's Anvisoft staff (conspicuously labeled as such). Are you proposing that they cannot be used on Misplaced Pages because of the software on which they publish their information?
As for the First Arkansas News it's clearly a small news site, published on a blog. While the lack of an editorial board makes certainly this is a sub-optimal source, this is also not anonymous commentary. If you can find a better link documenting that Conduit is a tool for creating toolbars that deceptively install a browser hijacker and are by design difficult to remove, please contribute.
However, I fear the best I'll get will be a tag-team response from a certain other editor. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Categories:
Talk:Conduit toolbar: Difference between revisions Add topic