This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Blekko 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: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from Blekko appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 6 November 2010 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
Hi. In English, you aim TO do something and you aim AT something. "I aim to achieve great success"; "I aim my weapon at the wall", "We aim TO please"; "They took aim at the target". -- Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia ( talk) 00:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Jan, your rationale for the change as a way to try and save the diversity of language is praiseworthy and I do the same in the languages that I work with. I had a Swiss professor for French at university and will never forget him saying that in French, where possible, one never repeats words in close proximity in a text. I've always observed that and strive for colourful diverse vocabulary. But at the same time, where something scratches you ear (for whatever reason - incorrect use, wrong register, incorrect within context, etc), I opt for something that the ear will find pleasing. Best regards, -- Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia ( talk) 21:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
No further claims of "installs itself without permission" or "malware" will be allowed in this article without two independent reliable sources, meaning notable authors in notable publications which explicitly state such accusations. -- Lexein ( talk) 04:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
See above. -- Lexein ( talk) 08:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Once again Lexein has acted as a Wikipedia censor.
In the article about Blekko I added "As of 2012, this search engine installs itself without asking the user's permission. It redirects attempts to use Google or Bing search engines to blekko." My comment was removed within hours. My statement is completely true based on my experience and I will be very happy to testify to it in a court of law, as, I suspect, will the many authors of articles that come up when you search (in a non-Blekko search engine) the phrase "Is Blekko a virus?" A dozen witnesses count for a lot more than one "reliable source" in any court of law.
Lexein apparently is unfamiliar with legal terminology. A claim is not "defamatory" (or false) when it is true. She or he should be a lot more careful about who they accuse of defamation.
Lexein: What reliable or notable source has debunked the often repeated claims that Blekko installs itself without the user's permission and that it redirects google and Bing searches to Blekko?
Lexein says that all search engines, like Blekko, install themselves or attempt to install themselves as the default search, which is true. None of them, except Blekko, redirect a user's search from their engine of choice to Blekko.
Wouldn't it be more honest and ethical of Lexein to refute these claims within the context of the article (as in under the heading of "Controversies") than to censor them and hurl unsourced insults at honest posters? Then the reader could be the judge. Isn't that the way Wikipedia is supposed to work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boblo949 ( talk • contribs) 20:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
Having read both of your comments, the previous discussion and viewed the contentious information I have come to several conclusions. The first relates to the content dispute; the claim: "As of 2012, this search engine installs itself without asking the user's permission. It redirects attempts to use Google or Bing search engines to blekko.", cannot be included in the article without a
reliable source because all contentious material must be backed up by such a source. "I know it to be true" isn't sufficient for this to be included because that would be
original research. It should also be pointed out that
blogs are not reliable sources, especially for controversial statements.
I also have some comments on the behaviour of all three editors involved in the discussions about this information. First is that the repeated use of the word "Defamation" by all of you is covered by the policy on legal threats. I request that all of you please think about the implications of what you write. Second is the similar accusations of conflicts of interest that are also thrown about by all parties; this is not acceptable and is definitely not assuming good faith. To summarise, the disputed claim should not be re-added until a reliable source is provided to back it up. An example would be a news article from a reputable publisher. In addition, it is impossible for a collegial atmosphere to be maintained if all editors casually throw around serious accusations, therefore I implore all three of you to think carefully about the meaning of words before you type and to at least try to assume good faith. Mrmatiko ( talk) 18:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC) |
To Third Opinion Mrmatiko (thank you for any responses you are willing to provide):
--Suppose my posting had read "As of 2012 blekko allegedly installs itself without asking the user's permission." Could some editor remove it, and if so wouldn't they ethically be obligated to remove tens of thousands of similarly phrased and unsourced postings in other Wikipedia articles?
--If an article were to be written in a "notable" publication that supported my claim wouldn't Wikipedia accept the legitimacy of that article even if it was based exclusively on interviews with bloggers (or witnesses)?
--Why is it that Wikipedia rejects the word of bloggers inspite of the fact that Wikipedia is itself a blog? (Lexein recently deleted one of my edits because it came from an unreliable source--Wikipedia.)
--Why does Wikipedia accept as reliable sources publications that are notorious for their lies?
--Although I once considered Wikipedia a reasonable place to start, as a scholar I, and the vast majority of teachers in America agree with Lexein that Wikipedia is unreliable. So given that Wikipedia is no Oxford English Dictionary, no Brittanica, no New York Times and it concedes that information on Wikipedia is unreliable, why can't it at least serve some useful purpose by allowing open discussion and debate within its articles?
--You, the unbiased the third party, criticized the behavior of the editors (I assume including me). Since I really don't know, who do you believe I defamed or accused of defamation or accused of conflict of interest?
To Lexein: You accused me of making false and defamatory claims and then you have the temerity to say "I've been polite to this point..."? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boblo949 ( talk • contribs) 21:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
I've interleaved my answers using bullet points. -- Mrmatiko ( talk) 06:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Please do not intersperse your comments with those of the editor you are replying to. While this is common practice in mailing lists, where interspersal in a reply is often very good, here it breaks up the effective primary record of a discussion, making it more difficult to follow who is saying what. If it is justified, the prior section really should have a signature added to it (copy of the original), and a note that it is continued below. Instead, if you really need to respond to something point by point, you may wish to adopt the practice of quoting it, perhaps with italics to set it off. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing comments. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 06:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
To Third Opinion Mrmatiko:
Thank you very much for your unexpectedly thorough and civil response to my many questions. Unfortunately, I have to contest some of your statements.
--"Allegedly" is NOT a "Weasel Word" as defined by the article that you cited. According to that article "Alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined." (Sorry for the circular reference to a Wikipedia article.)
--Wikipedia's own definitions of notability and reliability seem incoherent to me. And, it is really not clear what constitutes "clear evidence" and who is allowed (and not allowed0 to make that determination.
--By Wikipedia's definition of circular referencing the Oxford English Dictionary could not refer to itself. I think that may come as a surprise to OED, but I may be wrong.
--There is not enough time or space to address the issue of unreliable sources that Wikipedia accepts without question.
--I am very sorry to say that Wikipedia IS a blog, albeit an edited blog. It is a blog that is edited by people with limited expertise. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia which has been "researched and written by well-educated, well-informed content experts." (Again, sorry for the circular reference to a Wikipedia article.)
--Thank you for qualifying your comments about editors' behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boblo949 ( talk • contribs) 09:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
I feel that further community input is required to solve this issue and have notified some recent contributors to Blekko of this discussion. -- Mrmatiko ( talk) 14:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
I hope that this does get resolved soon and that appropriate warnings to potential users of this software are permitted to be added to this page. I have just spent two hours removing Blekko and other related unwanted software from my computer, as well as fixing browser settings that had been updated - without permission - to redirect searches and replace homepages with Blekko. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.166.8.13 ( talk) 10:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Vjo - thanks for writing, and WP:Welcome to Wikipedia, where you've been editing for a number of years, and where we, by consensus, abide by the WP:Five Pillars of Wikipedia, including only using independent, verifiable, reliable sources for claims made in articles. What you call "whitewashing", we call, sticking with reliable independent published sources. Personal experience is WP:Original research and it simply isn't used at Wikipedia.
We are not at all determined to "prevent warnings", but we are very determined not to spread rumors, exaggerations, and falsehoods. Rest assured that if PC Magazine, Wired, or any other reputable outlet reports a problem with Blekko's searchbar, it will not be "whitewashed". It will not be written as a literal warning, because WP:NODISCLAIMER, but it will be reported as reported by the source.
Wikipedia is WP:NOT an advocacy outlet, or a blog, or a battleground, or a forum, or a tech support site, or anyone's mom, meaning we won't solve your problems for you. The WP:Talk page is for improving the article, not venting spleen. See, for instance, WP:TIGERS. Seriously.
We're all volunteers here. We do the things needed to build an encyclopedia, including reverting original research and unreliably sourced- and unsourced- claims.
To get some results, and legitimately help other users, perhaps write, politely, directly to Blekko - they invite you to do so, right there in their documentation, linked above. Detail what you downloaded, where you got it, what you did, what the installer did. Include screenshots, if needed. -- Lexein ( talk) 13:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
@Edmund: Is it a good idea to submit the malware for analysis to a couple of antivirus companies? Arcandam ( talk) 08:10, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
As we seem to have come up with a set of proposals, I think it may be time for a more formal request for comment. -- Mrmatiko ( talk) 17:24, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
There is a dispute over whether a comment about the Blekko toolbar changing certain browser settings should be placed in the lead section of the article. There are currently three proposals:
Note: I've broken out the references provided to make it easier to see the sources being used-- Mrmatiko ( talk) 17:24, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Option 3 misrepresents the ref, and adds OR. However it is on the right lines in my opinion Here's what the blekko site says "By default, downloading the blekko spam free search bar also changes your homepage and default search engine to blekko." That should be mentioned in the lede, IMO. It does not, in my opinion need any more scare tactics than that. Greglocock ( talk) 03:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
It appears that you have asked the question "Should a comment on the Blekko toolbar be in the lead section" and then given three proposals, all of which are in the lead section. I reject all three. here are my opinions:
By now I have collected so much WP:OR that I should probably start a webpage about blekko. I probably need to do a lot more research if I want to discover what they are up to. This is pretty strange behaviour for a search engine toolbar, and they are also doing some weird SEO stuff. Arcandam ( talk) 13:36, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
References
-- Lexein ( talk) 14:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
The way I see it, these are the facts reliably supported by sources given above:
I suggest some of this could be added to the article; perhaps it might be enough to resolve any disputes? Vadmium ( talk, contribs) 05:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC).
I reverted Beauhanks because this is a very very unreliable source. Arcandam ( talk) 16:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
There seems to be an undercurrent here of people who think that this article should present some PR friendly version of Blekko the search engine, who are prepared to ignore the fact that a common install using this, with the toolbar, does some pretty evil things to your PC. Since the article is called 'Blekko', not 'Blekko (search engine)', then mentioning the facts that Blekko toolbar's own faq states about its behaviour are neither off topic, nor are they non RS. So, in my opinion either split the article into two, so that you can have a 'Blekko (search engine)' page, where all is wonderful, and a 'Blekko (toolbar)' page where its FAQ is quoted, or else accept that the 'Blekko' article has to cover both the search engine, and the toolbar, and so the toolbar's faq is a relevant source. Greglocock ( talk) 02:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Those editors who want a reliable source for the malware claim should probably send tips about this to IT news sources. Don't bother with pro-corporate mainstream media such as CNET but try with anti-establishment tech-politics sources such as BoingBoing, Techdirt, The Register, Huffington Post, EFF and possibly Techcrunch. I also suspect that editors with an open pro BLEKKO POV have a conflict of interest and should therefore not be allowed to edit this article. MaxPont ( talk) 10:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
At Google Safe Browsing, for four websources of the Blekko toolbar, all four reports stated: "0 page(s) resulted in malicious software being downloaded and installed without user consent."
I doubt Google would hide malware reports, if it found any at blekko.com. I also submitted the current blekkoctb.exe (directly from blekko.com) to virustotal.com, which reported 0 malware detected, from their 42 malware scanners. VirusTotal reports it was signed at 3:08 AM 6/29/2012. Under the Additional information tab:
-- Lexein ( talk) 17:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Again scanned the toolbar blekkoctb.exe (directly from blekko.com) using VirusTotal ( WebCite)and now two scanners return results on 2013-04-07 16:03:06 UTC:
Under the Additional information tab:
I submitted the above executable to ThreatExpert Submit a sample and received a report indicating no problems. -- Lexein ( talk) 06:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
I reverted the ==Controversy== section. The deletemalware.blogspot.com BLOG source isn't a reliable source - it's a blog (one strike) by an (as yet) non-notable author (two strikes), which hasn't been publicly acknowledged by any other RS (three strikes). Please find evidence of notability of author, such as being cited by other RS, or bona fides, or book authorship, etc. We've been over this. We're waiting for any media or antivirus or antimalware vendor to pick up on the CNET/toolbar/hard to remove story. Apparently nobody agrees with deletemalware.blogspot.com. And come on, not even deletemalware called this a "Controversy" - that's entirely undue weight by the adding editor. -- Lexein ( talk) 01:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Plausible, badly written, couldn't find a source. "Wrote on 15th August" where? Couldn't find it. Discuss? -- Lexein ( talk) 04:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
The article says that the company name is trademarked blekko, yet in most of the article it is spelled Blekko. Should Blekko be changed to blekko? JitteryOwl ( talk) 21:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
We may have our sources discussing installers and toolbars such as those used by Blekko any day now... -- Lexein ( talk) 19:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Please see prior discussions about claims about the Blekko Toolbar, and our inability (so far) to find any reliable published sources (news, magazine, book, or notable author blog) to support those claims ("virus", "malware", "self-installing", "hard to remove", etc). Blekko installers (directly from Blekko.com), showed no problems at VirusTotal.com. So:
This doesn't seem to be mentioned in any RS. It can certainly go in when it's written about in reliable sources. -- Lexein ( talk) 16:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
I think there are a few competitors to the blekko initiative. Besides the obvious google, bing and ask there are other such 'undergraound' search-engines sites to name a few: findthebest.com, wolfarmalpha, shadow.com, duckduckgo, topix,... and a nice table comparing the different approaches would have been of great value to the readers. I would have made such a table myself, but I'm not sure the moderators of this page would add it and I'd hate to throw away as this is not a small effort. Perhaps the right thing to do is open a new wiki page for 'underground' or 'experimental' search engines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elimash ( talk • contribs) 07:29, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Blekko. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:10, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Blekko. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:51, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Blekko 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: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from Blekko appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 6 November 2010 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
Hi. In English, you aim TO do something and you aim AT something. "I aim to achieve great success"; "I aim my weapon at the wall", "We aim TO please"; "They took aim at the target". -- Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia ( talk) 00:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Jan, your rationale for the change as a way to try and save the diversity of language is praiseworthy and I do the same in the languages that I work with. I had a Swiss professor for French at university and will never forget him saying that in French, where possible, one never repeats words in close proximity in a text. I've always observed that and strive for colourful diverse vocabulary. But at the same time, where something scratches you ear (for whatever reason - incorrect use, wrong register, incorrect within context, etc), I opt for something that the ear will find pleasing. Best regards, -- Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia ( talk) 21:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
No further claims of "installs itself without permission" or "malware" will be allowed in this article without two independent reliable sources, meaning notable authors in notable publications which explicitly state such accusations. -- Lexein ( talk) 04:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
See above. -- Lexein ( talk) 08:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Once again Lexein has acted as a Wikipedia censor.
In the article about Blekko I added "As of 2012, this search engine installs itself without asking the user's permission. It redirects attempts to use Google or Bing search engines to blekko." My comment was removed within hours. My statement is completely true based on my experience and I will be very happy to testify to it in a court of law, as, I suspect, will the many authors of articles that come up when you search (in a non-Blekko search engine) the phrase "Is Blekko a virus?" A dozen witnesses count for a lot more than one "reliable source" in any court of law.
Lexein apparently is unfamiliar with legal terminology. A claim is not "defamatory" (or false) when it is true. She or he should be a lot more careful about who they accuse of defamation.
Lexein: What reliable or notable source has debunked the often repeated claims that Blekko installs itself without the user's permission and that it redirects google and Bing searches to Blekko?
Lexein says that all search engines, like Blekko, install themselves or attempt to install themselves as the default search, which is true. None of them, except Blekko, redirect a user's search from their engine of choice to Blekko.
Wouldn't it be more honest and ethical of Lexein to refute these claims within the context of the article (as in under the heading of "Controversies") than to censor them and hurl unsourced insults at honest posters? Then the reader could be the judge. Isn't that the way Wikipedia is supposed to work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boblo949 ( talk • contribs) 20:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
Having read both of your comments, the previous discussion and viewed the contentious information I have come to several conclusions. The first relates to the content dispute; the claim: "As of 2012, this search engine installs itself without asking the user's permission. It redirects attempts to use Google or Bing search engines to blekko.", cannot be included in the article without a
reliable source because all contentious material must be backed up by such a source. "I know it to be true" isn't sufficient for this to be included because that would be
original research. It should also be pointed out that
blogs are not reliable sources, especially for controversial statements.
I also have some comments on the behaviour of all three editors involved in the discussions about this information. First is that the repeated use of the word "Defamation" by all of you is covered by the policy on legal threats. I request that all of you please think about the implications of what you write. Second is the similar accusations of conflicts of interest that are also thrown about by all parties; this is not acceptable and is definitely not assuming good faith. To summarise, the disputed claim should not be re-added until a reliable source is provided to back it up. An example would be a news article from a reputable publisher. In addition, it is impossible for a collegial atmosphere to be maintained if all editors casually throw around serious accusations, therefore I implore all three of you to think carefully about the meaning of words before you type and to at least try to assume good faith. Mrmatiko ( talk) 18:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC) |
To Third Opinion Mrmatiko (thank you for any responses you are willing to provide):
--Suppose my posting had read "As of 2012 blekko allegedly installs itself without asking the user's permission." Could some editor remove it, and if so wouldn't they ethically be obligated to remove tens of thousands of similarly phrased and unsourced postings in other Wikipedia articles?
--If an article were to be written in a "notable" publication that supported my claim wouldn't Wikipedia accept the legitimacy of that article even if it was based exclusively on interviews with bloggers (or witnesses)?
--Why is it that Wikipedia rejects the word of bloggers inspite of the fact that Wikipedia is itself a blog? (Lexein recently deleted one of my edits because it came from an unreliable source--Wikipedia.)
--Why does Wikipedia accept as reliable sources publications that are notorious for their lies?
--Although I once considered Wikipedia a reasonable place to start, as a scholar I, and the vast majority of teachers in America agree with Lexein that Wikipedia is unreliable. So given that Wikipedia is no Oxford English Dictionary, no Brittanica, no New York Times and it concedes that information on Wikipedia is unreliable, why can't it at least serve some useful purpose by allowing open discussion and debate within its articles?
--You, the unbiased the third party, criticized the behavior of the editors (I assume including me). Since I really don't know, who do you believe I defamed or accused of defamation or accused of conflict of interest?
To Lexein: You accused me of making false and defamatory claims and then you have the temerity to say "I've been polite to this point..."? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boblo949 ( talk • contribs) 21:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
I've interleaved my answers using bullet points. -- Mrmatiko ( talk) 06:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Please do not intersperse your comments with those of the editor you are replying to. While this is common practice in mailing lists, where interspersal in a reply is often very good, here it breaks up the effective primary record of a discussion, making it more difficult to follow who is saying what. If it is justified, the prior section really should have a signature added to it (copy of the original), and a note that it is continued below. Instead, if you really need to respond to something point by point, you may wish to adopt the practice of quoting it, perhaps with italics to set it off. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing comments. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 06:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
To Third Opinion Mrmatiko:
Thank you very much for your unexpectedly thorough and civil response to my many questions. Unfortunately, I have to contest some of your statements.
--"Allegedly" is NOT a "Weasel Word" as defined by the article that you cited. According to that article "Alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined." (Sorry for the circular reference to a Wikipedia article.)
--Wikipedia's own definitions of notability and reliability seem incoherent to me. And, it is really not clear what constitutes "clear evidence" and who is allowed (and not allowed0 to make that determination.
--By Wikipedia's definition of circular referencing the Oxford English Dictionary could not refer to itself. I think that may come as a surprise to OED, but I may be wrong.
--There is not enough time or space to address the issue of unreliable sources that Wikipedia accepts without question.
--I am very sorry to say that Wikipedia IS a blog, albeit an edited blog. It is a blog that is edited by people with limited expertise. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia which has been "researched and written by well-educated, well-informed content experts." (Again, sorry for the circular reference to a Wikipedia article.)
--Thank you for qualifying your comments about editors' behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boblo949 ( talk • contribs) 09:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
I feel that further community input is required to solve this issue and have notified some recent contributors to Blekko of this discussion. -- Mrmatiko ( talk) 14:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
I hope that this does get resolved soon and that appropriate warnings to potential users of this software are permitted to be added to this page. I have just spent two hours removing Blekko and other related unwanted software from my computer, as well as fixing browser settings that had been updated - without permission - to redirect searches and replace homepages with Blekko. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.166.8.13 ( talk) 10:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Vjo - thanks for writing, and WP:Welcome to Wikipedia, where you've been editing for a number of years, and where we, by consensus, abide by the WP:Five Pillars of Wikipedia, including only using independent, verifiable, reliable sources for claims made in articles. What you call "whitewashing", we call, sticking with reliable independent published sources. Personal experience is WP:Original research and it simply isn't used at Wikipedia.
We are not at all determined to "prevent warnings", but we are very determined not to spread rumors, exaggerations, and falsehoods. Rest assured that if PC Magazine, Wired, or any other reputable outlet reports a problem with Blekko's searchbar, it will not be "whitewashed". It will not be written as a literal warning, because WP:NODISCLAIMER, but it will be reported as reported by the source.
Wikipedia is WP:NOT an advocacy outlet, or a blog, or a battleground, or a forum, or a tech support site, or anyone's mom, meaning we won't solve your problems for you. The WP:Talk page is for improving the article, not venting spleen. See, for instance, WP:TIGERS. Seriously.
We're all volunteers here. We do the things needed to build an encyclopedia, including reverting original research and unreliably sourced- and unsourced- claims.
To get some results, and legitimately help other users, perhaps write, politely, directly to Blekko - they invite you to do so, right there in their documentation, linked above. Detail what you downloaded, where you got it, what you did, what the installer did. Include screenshots, if needed. -- Lexein ( talk) 13:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
@Edmund: Is it a good idea to submit the malware for analysis to a couple of antivirus companies? Arcandam ( talk) 08:10, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
As we seem to have come up with a set of proposals, I think it may be time for a more formal request for comment. -- Mrmatiko ( talk) 17:24, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
There is a dispute over whether a comment about the Blekko toolbar changing certain browser settings should be placed in the lead section of the article. There are currently three proposals:
Note: I've broken out the references provided to make it easier to see the sources being used-- Mrmatiko ( talk) 17:24, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Option 3 misrepresents the ref, and adds OR. However it is on the right lines in my opinion Here's what the blekko site says "By default, downloading the blekko spam free search bar also changes your homepage and default search engine to blekko." That should be mentioned in the lede, IMO. It does not, in my opinion need any more scare tactics than that. Greglocock ( talk) 03:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
It appears that you have asked the question "Should a comment on the Blekko toolbar be in the lead section" and then given three proposals, all of which are in the lead section. I reject all three. here are my opinions:
By now I have collected so much WP:OR that I should probably start a webpage about blekko. I probably need to do a lot more research if I want to discover what they are up to. This is pretty strange behaviour for a search engine toolbar, and they are also doing some weird SEO stuff. Arcandam ( talk) 13:36, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
References
-- Lexein ( talk) 14:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
The way I see it, these are the facts reliably supported by sources given above:
I suggest some of this could be added to the article; perhaps it might be enough to resolve any disputes? Vadmium ( talk, contribs) 05:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC).
I reverted Beauhanks because this is a very very unreliable source. Arcandam ( talk) 16:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
There seems to be an undercurrent here of people who think that this article should present some PR friendly version of Blekko the search engine, who are prepared to ignore the fact that a common install using this, with the toolbar, does some pretty evil things to your PC. Since the article is called 'Blekko', not 'Blekko (search engine)', then mentioning the facts that Blekko toolbar's own faq states about its behaviour are neither off topic, nor are they non RS. So, in my opinion either split the article into two, so that you can have a 'Blekko (search engine)' page, where all is wonderful, and a 'Blekko (toolbar)' page where its FAQ is quoted, or else accept that the 'Blekko' article has to cover both the search engine, and the toolbar, and so the toolbar's faq is a relevant source. Greglocock ( talk) 02:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Those editors who want a reliable source for the malware claim should probably send tips about this to IT news sources. Don't bother with pro-corporate mainstream media such as CNET but try with anti-establishment tech-politics sources such as BoingBoing, Techdirt, The Register, Huffington Post, EFF and possibly Techcrunch. I also suspect that editors with an open pro BLEKKO POV have a conflict of interest and should therefore not be allowed to edit this article. MaxPont ( talk) 10:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
At Google Safe Browsing, for four websources of the Blekko toolbar, all four reports stated: "0 page(s) resulted in malicious software being downloaded and installed without user consent."
I doubt Google would hide malware reports, if it found any at blekko.com. I also submitted the current blekkoctb.exe (directly from blekko.com) to virustotal.com, which reported 0 malware detected, from their 42 malware scanners. VirusTotal reports it was signed at 3:08 AM 6/29/2012. Under the Additional information tab:
-- Lexein ( talk) 17:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Again scanned the toolbar blekkoctb.exe (directly from blekko.com) using VirusTotal ( WebCite)and now two scanners return results on 2013-04-07 16:03:06 UTC:
Under the Additional information tab:
I submitted the above executable to ThreatExpert Submit a sample and received a report indicating no problems. -- Lexein ( talk) 06:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
I reverted the ==Controversy== section. The deletemalware.blogspot.com BLOG source isn't a reliable source - it's a blog (one strike) by an (as yet) non-notable author (two strikes), which hasn't been publicly acknowledged by any other RS (three strikes). Please find evidence of notability of author, such as being cited by other RS, or bona fides, or book authorship, etc. We've been over this. We're waiting for any media or antivirus or antimalware vendor to pick up on the CNET/toolbar/hard to remove story. Apparently nobody agrees with deletemalware.blogspot.com. And come on, not even deletemalware called this a "Controversy" - that's entirely undue weight by the adding editor. -- Lexein ( talk) 01:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Plausible, badly written, couldn't find a source. "Wrote on 15th August" where? Couldn't find it. Discuss? -- Lexein ( talk) 04:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
The article says that the company name is trademarked blekko, yet in most of the article it is spelled Blekko. Should Blekko be changed to blekko? JitteryOwl ( talk) 21:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
We may have our sources discussing installers and toolbars such as those used by Blekko any day now... -- Lexein ( talk) 19:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Please see prior discussions about claims about the Blekko Toolbar, and our inability (so far) to find any reliable published sources (news, magazine, book, or notable author blog) to support those claims ("virus", "malware", "self-installing", "hard to remove", etc). Blekko installers (directly from Blekko.com), showed no problems at VirusTotal.com. So:
This doesn't seem to be mentioned in any RS. It can certainly go in when it's written about in reliable sources. -- Lexein ( talk) 16:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
I think there are a few competitors to the blekko initiative. Besides the obvious google, bing and ask there are other such 'undergraound' search-engines sites to name a few: findthebest.com, wolfarmalpha, shadow.com, duckduckgo, topix,... and a nice table comparing the different approaches would have been of great value to the readers. I would have made such a table myself, but I'm not sure the moderators of this page would add it and I'd hate to throw away as this is not a small effort. Perhaps the right thing to do is open a new wiki page for 'underground' or 'experimental' search engines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elimash ( talk • contribs) 07:29, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Blekko. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:10, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Blekko. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:51, 21 July 2017 (UTC)