This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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)
This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) -- 86.181.131.186 ( talk) 13:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
The page should be rewritten to not be like an ad for spam. Zakawer ( talk) 12:13, 7 December 2011 (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)
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)
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.
-- Terrible Tim ( talk) 23:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
The Conduit toolbar is identified as a Potentially Unwanted Program by Malwarebytes. [1] [2] [3]
Any objections to me adding this fact to the article? Terrible Tim ( talk) 14:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
A number of people have installed this plug-in but then have run into roadblocks when trying to uninstall it
Terrible Tim posted an informal RFC at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Computer_Security#Conduit_and_Browser_hijacking and I'm here to say WP:QUACK. The only problem with some of these sources are that they're WP:PRIMARY. But primary sources are not forbidden and two are full-fledged WP:RS's. The information should be included. The best damage control that can be done for Conduit at this point is to find some other independent sources that purport that the toolbars are not hijacks and also include that POV in the article. ~ KvnG 15:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Let me remind everybody that there was no consensus to add non-RS forums as citations, and thus they are not appropriate for this article. There was one article we agreed could be used, citing Conduit as "difficult to remove", but there still are absolutely no good sources for using the term browser hijacker. So let's not get ahead of ourselves here, and move forward more cautiously here. Jeremy112233 ( talk) 14:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
To protect people, the overview should include how Conduit created a malware program that is 1) difficult to remove and 2) is installed covertly.
I wasn't able to find an official source for this. Google "remove conduit malware" and see what you find. The program is very similar to the "Ask Toolbar".
Thank you,
50.100.177.253 ( talk) 22:08, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.. You need to provide a source which links the malware to this subject. Thanks, Celestra ( talk) 17:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
69.157.7.93 ( talk) 23:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Any simple search will show numerous reports of controversial incidents with this company's software being subtly installed on people's computers, with permission boxes auto-checked, with it re-installing itself without permission, being hard to remove, etc.
See for example Matthias Gruber's article. Wouldn't make an ideal reference, but the internet is full of this.
I would like to see if we could have a section on criticism of this company and its products, if we can supply some appropriate references for that. Ranze ( talk) 16:43, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
I am removing your addition to the article, as the content is already included in the "Browser" section. The section header has been removed as well, as per Wikipedia:Criticism, we should avoid having "a separate section in an article devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints. Instead, articles should present positive and negative viewpoints from reliable sources together, fairly, proportionately, and without bias." -- Diannaa ( talk) 17:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
A criticism section would be value in that it tends to be lost (easily overlooked) amidst the positive viewpoints. I can't help but think that the sources which reviewed this company may have been biased. Odds are that such sources might be lax in their criticism to avoid accusations of libel and stuff. Forums often more freely express the truth of problems that computer users are having with the company's products. I mean heck, the whole reason I looked this company up was because all of a sudden my firewall was warning me that a product from this company I never heard of, hidden inside my temporary internet files, was trying to send browsing data. A reliable source of criticism hopefully exists out there which we can cite. I've seen this stuff called spyware in addition to hijacking too. Sadly with the amount of money this company has, I fear a lot of potential sources would be unwilling to stick their necks out to apply criticism. Ranze ( talk) 18:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The opening sentence of this article cites two unreliable sources: a website called All Things Digital, and a blog post on a website called Website Magazine. Neither website has any reputation for reliability. Please find a reliable source that accurately and clearly explains what it is that Conduit markets.
A lot of useful information can be found here: http://web.utsandiego.com/news/2013/oct/26/tp-uninstalling-toolbars-free-trials/
Here is another good description: http://www.mydigitalfc.com/knowledge/browser-hijack-no-joyride-049 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.226.105 ( talk • contribs) 11:31, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
There are literally dozens of articles online which could be used as sources for criticism, easily found by searching (for instance) "conduit malware". Many instruct users how to get rid of the hijacking software distributed by this company. The notion that all these articles are blogposts is false, and the alacrity with which certain editors (to wit: user Dianna and user Jarry1250) revert changes and defend this company lead me to believe these editors are paid flacks. Please, if you are not being paid to maintain this company's reputation, say so directly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.58.143.86 ( talk) 01:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps there is justice in the world. Conduit was sued for patent infringement last month. https://setexasrecord.com/news/291900-recent-patent-infringement-cases-filed-in-the-eastern-district-of-texas-66 2601:A:4B00:214:A9B2:26C2:147A:BBE ( talk) 22:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Conduit's adware or malware has systematically been destroying my computer for weeks now. I didn't ask for Conduit, it was bundled in a graphics program I downloaded (and did not disclose the nasty surprise that is Conduit). Conduit has repeatedly highjacked my web browsers, and now it has started to corrupt my computer's registry. Any company that resorts to these tactics to force their product upon people should be put of business, in my opinion. So that's my bias. But don't worry, I'm not going to edit the page. I just wanted to make an observation on the article itself.
When one is attempting to research how to remove Conduit from a computer, this Wikipedia article is one of the top search results. And it is a complete whitewash. When you browse through the history of the page, you see two editors in particular -- Diannaa and Jeremy112233 who methodically remove nearly all criticism of Conduit's software. This strongly suggests that these two editors have some sort of conflict on interest, perhaps either as public relations or paid editors. Perhaps the administrators/editors are devout believers in certain Wikipedia's guidelines, but these rules have so many grey areas and are haphazardly enforced across Wikipedia. There really is no other reasonable explanation for why an administrator or editor would go so far out of their way to keep negative references out of one particular article on a piece of software. Outside of this article, is anyone out there on the internet calling Conduit a valid, good product? No. Its universally decried as adware, malware, or worse. (Google "Conduit" and you'll see.) Except here. And yes, I see the reference to "difficult to remove." That, however, grossly understates the issues with this program.
I'm really not trying to engage in a personal attack. I don't know them. I'm sure they are fine, decent people in the real world. I've seen many editing battles on Wikipedia articles on religion, politics, and cult television shows. You somewhat expect bias battles on those topics. But why would an editor vehemently defend Conduit? I mean, really, . . . Conduit?? What could conceivably be the greater purpose in protecting Conduit from criticism, other than getting paid to do so? Absent some Wikipedia version of financial disclosure forms, there's no real way to definitively prove a conflict on interest unless the editors themselves admit as much. 2601:A:4B00:214:A9B2:26C2:147A:BBE ( talk) 21:55, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
This page was previously vandalized, and has now been restored back to its previous version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PremVis ( talk • contribs) 11:54, 14 August 2011
Conduit is a platform for virus & Spam! -- 2001:4C50:21D:F400:21A:4DFF:FE55:A75D ( talk) 20:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Conduit is doing a good job of gaming Wikipedia.
Googling "Conduit software" returns page after page of how to remove Conduit.
That says something about the nature of the relationship between the general public and Conduit software. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.118.158 ( talk) 00:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
If it's not malware, then would a moderator please install this ?ware and then try uninstalling it. After doing so, please add either a malware section or a section explaining how to remove the software. How do we escalate this as an issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GaTechThomas ( talk • contribs) 00:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Today for the second time this week I spent time trying to remove the stubborn vestiges of Conduit's software from my PC. While doing so, curiosity pulled me to Wikipedia to see what it had to say about the company. I've learned to always read the Talk page on an article to get "the rest of the story" and found the discussion here entertaining.
And this is an interesting subject. When you search for Conduit's product, you get page after page of the same thing: people asking how to get rid of it. You might see this Wikipedia article and you might see something from the company web site; other than that, though, it's all forums and blogs of people helping people remove the product. What other product can make that claim?
The article does mention that the browser toolbar (not their only product but the one that gets the most hate) has been spun off as part of Perion. (That may call for an update to the lead paragraph.) One could suggest that the toolbar information should be moved to a page on Perion and its CodeFuel line – although some mention of it as part of the history of Conduit makes sense. But because it's Conduit that created it and because it still bears their name, it's this article people will find when they're looking for information.
Diannaa & Jeremy112233, I appreciate your effort to maintain Wikipedia's integrity. I know it can be thankless and that several goals have to be balanced. I hope you understand the frustration people feel when they've found this software on their computer. It is ridiculously hard to remove, and the manner in which it gets installed in the first place and the changes it makes without user consent leaves one feeling duped or violated.
You've allowed the compromise statement about the toolbars being described in some forums and news outlets as a browser hijack. By the Wikipedia article on browser hijacking, the toolbar absolutely *is* one. It's the nature of how it works and it's how they monetize their customers' apps and pages. There's probably not a CNN story on it, but it's simply how it's designed. Making it hard to change browser preferences back to what they were (including the homepage) is a selling point. They will say it's to prevent other apps from changing it.
One distinction people should understand is that not everything the toolbars do is directly attributable to Conduit (or now Perion). What they provide is a platform for creating toolbars. That platform includes the ability to install a toolbar with no notification to the user, the ability exercise some level of control over all major browsers, to automatically update the toolbar's code and to make the toolbar nigh impossible to remove. How that platform is used is often (usually? always?) the work of someone else entirely. (What could possibly go wrong?) Gdvanc ( talk) 08:38, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Umm, okay. I don't care how many "PR" people this crap company has. My personal experience has been this. I buy a printer. I always check for options not to install bundled crap. I am an IT professional, I know what I'm doing. I scan with MALWARE BYTES and it shows up as an unwanted program.
I do not care if it's in the fine print. I'm going to click ok to use my printer I just purchased. There was no EULA "must install unwanted conduit hijack to use".
There needs to be a criticism section, period.
Perhaps the PR folks from conduit posing as users could have a leg to stand on if the installer worked. But it doesn't. You know it doesn't. You know it leaves changes to new tab window settings in browsers intentionally. So stop. It shouldn't take me as long as it does to clean a PC with conduit. It's garbage.
"Malware, short for malicious software, is any software used to disrupt computer operation, gather sensitive information, or gain access to private computer systems.[1] It can appear in the form of executable code, scripts, active content, and other software.[2] 'Malware' is a general term used to refer to a variety of forms of hostile or intrusive software."
disrupt computer operation - check. hostile - check.
Let's at least add a section that it's controversial at the very least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.74.239.106 ( talk) 00:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Conduit (publisher network and platform) → Conduit Inc. – Per WP:NCCORP and [5]. The current name seems a bit aspirational. Any thoughts/suggestions/objections? --Relisted. George Ho ( talk) 18:07, 12 October 2014 (UTC) Terrible Tim ( talk) 20:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
I've created a proposed new re-draft of the article for Conduit (publisher network and platform). I'd request that a very experienced editor work with me on this proposal. The Conduit article is in urgent need of an extensive overhaul for a few reasons:
1) The company sold off the controversial "toolbar" business, which is the focus of most of the article. The (publisher network and platform) this article is named for does not exist anymore. The toolbar business is now part of a different, publicly traded company called Perion, which has merged it with its own products. Conduit Inc. is a company, with other products, and this should be the focus of the article. Information about the current business activities of Conduit Inc. should be made more prominent and information about the defunct toolbar business should be moved to the History section. Previously offered services can be integrated and discussed into the History section, where relevant, and abbreviated.
2) The prominent characterization of the former toolbar business (of what was, at the time, the largest Internet company in Israel) as a "browser hijaker" and "malware" violates several Wikipedia policies including:
Since these accusations are inflammatory and controversial, there is a particular burden for the sourcing to be high quality. Dozens of high quality reliable sources cited refer to the business as a publishing platform and only a few fringe, unreliable sources call it a "browser hijaker" or "malware." The phrases "browser hijaker" and "malware" should therefore be removed or at the very least, represented as the opinion of some commentators, not a fact, or the primary description of the company (especially since the toolbar business was sold to another company and no longer even exists as a Conduit product).
When you eliminate the self-published and unreliable sources, you are left with reliable sources that represent that some say the toolbar is difficult to uninstall [12] and "potentially unwanted." [13]
3) Some major mistakes throughout the article, such as:
I've also corrected citation formats. Some citations improperly include large chunks of text, in addition to the source, which is an improper work-around to include extraneous information in the article.
Finally, as the Conduit publishing platform no longer exists, this article should be renamed "Conduit, Inc." instead of just being a redirect from that article title.
I have a WP:COI because I am a paid consultant to Conduit, so I am proposing these changes via my user sandbox, rather than making direct edits. I am a frequent Wikipedia contributor and strive to abide strictly by WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR and all other Wikipedia rules.
I realize I have a special obligation to avoid bias, so I'd be pleased and grateful to work with an independent editor on the proposed revisions. Please see user:BC1278 for details about me. BC1278 ( talk) 03:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)BC1278
There should be a link to the more general Download Valley page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.217.2.172 ( talk) 16:52, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
This toolbar might have got installed on your computer with some other programs and that might have changed your homepage without your knowledge.
Search.conduit.com always disguises itself as Google Official search, when you open your hijacked web browser
A number of people have installed this plug-in but then have run into roadblocks when trying to uninstall it
... directs searches through Conduit and sends results favoring some of the company's marketing partners.
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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)
This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) -- 86.181.131.186 ( talk) 13:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
The page should be rewritten to not be like an ad for spam. Zakawer ( talk) 12:13, 7 December 2011 (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)
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)
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.
-- Terrible Tim ( talk) 23:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
The Conduit toolbar is identified as a Potentially Unwanted Program by Malwarebytes. [1] [2] [3]
Any objections to me adding this fact to the article? Terrible Tim ( talk) 14:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
A number of people have installed this plug-in but then have run into roadblocks when trying to uninstall it
Terrible Tim posted an informal RFC at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Computer_Security#Conduit_and_Browser_hijacking and I'm here to say WP:QUACK. The only problem with some of these sources are that they're WP:PRIMARY. But primary sources are not forbidden and two are full-fledged WP:RS's. The information should be included. The best damage control that can be done for Conduit at this point is to find some other independent sources that purport that the toolbars are not hijacks and also include that POV in the article. ~ KvnG 15:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Let me remind everybody that there was no consensus to add non-RS forums as citations, and thus they are not appropriate for this article. There was one article we agreed could be used, citing Conduit as "difficult to remove", but there still are absolutely no good sources for using the term browser hijacker. So let's not get ahead of ourselves here, and move forward more cautiously here. Jeremy112233 ( talk) 14:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
To protect people, the overview should include how Conduit created a malware program that is 1) difficult to remove and 2) is installed covertly.
I wasn't able to find an official source for this. Google "remove conduit malware" and see what you find. The program is very similar to the "Ask Toolbar".
Thank you,
50.100.177.253 ( talk) 22:08, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.. You need to provide a source which links the malware to this subject. Thanks, Celestra ( talk) 17:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
69.157.7.93 ( talk) 23:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Any simple search will show numerous reports of controversial incidents with this company's software being subtly installed on people's computers, with permission boxes auto-checked, with it re-installing itself without permission, being hard to remove, etc.
See for example Matthias Gruber's article. Wouldn't make an ideal reference, but the internet is full of this.
I would like to see if we could have a section on criticism of this company and its products, if we can supply some appropriate references for that. Ranze ( talk) 16:43, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
I am removing your addition to the article, as the content is already included in the "Browser" section. The section header has been removed as well, as per Wikipedia:Criticism, we should avoid having "a separate section in an article devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints. Instead, articles should present positive and negative viewpoints from reliable sources together, fairly, proportionately, and without bias." -- Diannaa ( talk) 17:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
A criticism section would be value in that it tends to be lost (easily overlooked) amidst the positive viewpoints. I can't help but think that the sources which reviewed this company may have been biased. Odds are that such sources might be lax in their criticism to avoid accusations of libel and stuff. Forums often more freely express the truth of problems that computer users are having with the company's products. I mean heck, the whole reason I looked this company up was because all of a sudden my firewall was warning me that a product from this company I never heard of, hidden inside my temporary internet files, was trying to send browsing data. A reliable source of criticism hopefully exists out there which we can cite. I've seen this stuff called spyware in addition to hijacking too. Sadly with the amount of money this company has, I fear a lot of potential sources would be unwilling to stick their necks out to apply criticism. Ranze ( talk) 18:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The opening sentence of this article cites two unreliable sources: a website called All Things Digital, and a blog post on a website called Website Magazine. Neither website has any reputation for reliability. Please find a reliable source that accurately and clearly explains what it is that Conduit markets.
A lot of useful information can be found here: http://web.utsandiego.com/news/2013/oct/26/tp-uninstalling-toolbars-free-trials/
Here is another good description: http://www.mydigitalfc.com/knowledge/browser-hijack-no-joyride-049 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.226.105 ( talk • contribs) 11:31, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
There are literally dozens of articles online which could be used as sources for criticism, easily found by searching (for instance) "conduit malware". Many instruct users how to get rid of the hijacking software distributed by this company. The notion that all these articles are blogposts is false, and the alacrity with which certain editors (to wit: user Dianna and user Jarry1250) revert changes and defend this company lead me to believe these editors are paid flacks. Please, if you are not being paid to maintain this company's reputation, say so directly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.58.143.86 ( talk) 01:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps there is justice in the world. Conduit was sued for patent infringement last month. https://setexasrecord.com/news/291900-recent-patent-infringement-cases-filed-in-the-eastern-district-of-texas-66 2601:A:4B00:214:A9B2:26C2:147A:BBE ( talk) 22:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Conduit's adware or malware has systematically been destroying my computer for weeks now. I didn't ask for Conduit, it was bundled in a graphics program I downloaded (and did not disclose the nasty surprise that is Conduit). Conduit has repeatedly highjacked my web browsers, and now it has started to corrupt my computer's registry. Any company that resorts to these tactics to force their product upon people should be put of business, in my opinion. So that's my bias. But don't worry, I'm not going to edit the page. I just wanted to make an observation on the article itself.
When one is attempting to research how to remove Conduit from a computer, this Wikipedia article is one of the top search results. And it is a complete whitewash. When you browse through the history of the page, you see two editors in particular -- Diannaa and Jeremy112233 who methodically remove nearly all criticism of Conduit's software. This strongly suggests that these two editors have some sort of conflict on interest, perhaps either as public relations or paid editors. Perhaps the administrators/editors are devout believers in certain Wikipedia's guidelines, but these rules have so many grey areas and are haphazardly enforced across Wikipedia. There really is no other reasonable explanation for why an administrator or editor would go so far out of their way to keep negative references out of one particular article on a piece of software. Outside of this article, is anyone out there on the internet calling Conduit a valid, good product? No. Its universally decried as adware, malware, or worse. (Google "Conduit" and you'll see.) Except here. And yes, I see the reference to "difficult to remove." That, however, grossly understates the issues with this program.
I'm really not trying to engage in a personal attack. I don't know them. I'm sure they are fine, decent people in the real world. I've seen many editing battles on Wikipedia articles on religion, politics, and cult television shows. You somewhat expect bias battles on those topics. But why would an editor vehemently defend Conduit? I mean, really, . . . Conduit?? What could conceivably be the greater purpose in protecting Conduit from criticism, other than getting paid to do so? Absent some Wikipedia version of financial disclosure forms, there's no real way to definitively prove a conflict on interest unless the editors themselves admit as much. 2601:A:4B00:214:A9B2:26C2:147A:BBE ( talk) 21:55, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
This page was previously vandalized, and has now been restored back to its previous version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PremVis ( talk • contribs) 11:54, 14 August 2011
Conduit is a platform for virus & Spam! -- 2001:4C50:21D:F400:21A:4DFF:FE55:A75D ( talk) 20:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Conduit is doing a good job of gaming Wikipedia.
Googling "Conduit software" returns page after page of how to remove Conduit.
That says something about the nature of the relationship between the general public and Conduit software. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.118.158 ( talk) 00:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
If it's not malware, then would a moderator please install this ?ware and then try uninstalling it. After doing so, please add either a malware section or a section explaining how to remove the software. How do we escalate this as an issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GaTechThomas ( talk • contribs) 00:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Today for the second time this week I spent time trying to remove the stubborn vestiges of Conduit's software from my PC. While doing so, curiosity pulled me to Wikipedia to see what it had to say about the company. I've learned to always read the Talk page on an article to get "the rest of the story" and found the discussion here entertaining.
And this is an interesting subject. When you search for Conduit's product, you get page after page of the same thing: people asking how to get rid of it. You might see this Wikipedia article and you might see something from the company web site; other than that, though, it's all forums and blogs of people helping people remove the product. What other product can make that claim?
The article does mention that the browser toolbar (not their only product but the one that gets the most hate) has been spun off as part of Perion. (That may call for an update to the lead paragraph.) One could suggest that the toolbar information should be moved to a page on Perion and its CodeFuel line – although some mention of it as part of the history of Conduit makes sense. But because it's Conduit that created it and because it still bears their name, it's this article people will find when they're looking for information.
Diannaa & Jeremy112233, I appreciate your effort to maintain Wikipedia's integrity. I know it can be thankless and that several goals have to be balanced. I hope you understand the frustration people feel when they've found this software on their computer. It is ridiculously hard to remove, and the manner in which it gets installed in the first place and the changes it makes without user consent leaves one feeling duped or violated.
You've allowed the compromise statement about the toolbars being described in some forums and news outlets as a browser hijack. By the Wikipedia article on browser hijacking, the toolbar absolutely *is* one. It's the nature of how it works and it's how they monetize their customers' apps and pages. There's probably not a CNN story on it, but it's simply how it's designed. Making it hard to change browser preferences back to what they were (including the homepage) is a selling point. They will say it's to prevent other apps from changing it.
One distinction people should understand is that not everything the toolbars do is directly attributable to Conduit (or now Perion). What they provide is a platform for creating toolbars. That platform includes the ability to install a toolbar with no notification to the user, the ability exercise some level of control over all major browsers, to automatically update the toolbar's code and to make the toolbar nigh impossible to remove. How that platform is used is often (usually? always?) the work of someone else entirely. (What could possibly go wrong?) Gdvanc ( talk) 08:38, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Umm, okay. I don't care how many "PR" people this crap company has. My personal experience has been this. I buy a printer. I always check for options not to install bundled crap. I am an IT professional, I know what I'm doing. I scan with MALWARE BYTES and it shows up as an unwanted program.
I do not care if it's in the fine print. I'm going to click ok to use my printer I just purchased. There was no EULA "must install unwanted conduit hijack to use".
There needs to be a criticism section, period.
Perhaps the PR folks from conduit posing as users could have a leg to stand on if the installer worked. But it doesn't. You know it doesn't. You know it leaves changes to new tab window settings in browsers intentionally. So stop. It shouldn't take me as long as it does to clean a PC with conduit. It's garbage.
"Malware, short for malicious software, is any software used to disrupt computer operation, gather sensitive information, or gain access to private computer systems.[1] It can appear in the form of executable code, scripts, active content, and other software.[2] 'Malware' is a general term used to refer to a variety of forms of hostile or intrusive software."
disrupt computer operation - check. hostile - check.
Let's at least add a section that it's controversial at the very least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.74.239.106 ( talk) 00:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Conduit (publisher network and platform) → Conduit Inc. – Per WP:NCCORP and [5]. The current name seems a bit aspirational. Any thoughts/suggestions/objections? --Relisted. George Ho ( talk) 18:07, 12 October 2014 (UTC) Terrible Tim ( talk) 20:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
I've created a proposed new re-draft of the article for Conduit (publisher network and platform). I'd request that a very experienced editor work with me on this proposal. The Conduit article is in urgent need of an extensive overhaul for a few reasons:
1) The company sold off the controversial "toolbar" business, which is the focus of most of the article. The (publisher network and platform) this article is named for does not exist anymore. The toolbar business is now part of a different, publicly traded company called Perion, which has merged it with its own products. Conduit Inc. is a company, with other products, and this should be the focus of the article. Information about the current business activities of Conduit Inc. should be made more prominent and information about the defunct toolbar business should be moved to the History section. Previously offered services can be integrated and discussed into the History section, where relevant, and abbreviated.
2) The prominent characterization of the former toolbar business (of what was, at the time, the largest Internet company in Israel) as a "browser hijaker" and "malware" violates several Wikipedia policies including:
Since these accusations are inflammatory and controversial, there is a particular burden for the sourcing to be high quality. Dozens of high quality reliable sources cited refer to the business as a publishing platform and only a few fringe, unreliable sources call it a "browser hijaker" or "malware." The phrases "browser hijaker" and "malware" should therefore be removed or at the very least, represented as the opinion of some commentators, not a fact, or the primary description of the company (especially since the toolbar business was sold to another company and no longer even exists as a Conduit product).
When you eliminate the self-published and unreliable sources, you are left with reliable sources that represent that some say the toolbar is difficult to uninstall [12] and "potentially unwanted." [13]
3) Some major mistakes throughout the article, such as:
I've also corrected citation formats. Some citations improperly include large chunks of text, in addition to the source, which is an improper work-around to include extraneous information in the article.
Finally, as the Conduit publishing platform no longer exists, this article should be renamed "Conduit, Inc." instead of just being a redirect from that article title.
I have a WP:COI because I am a paid consultant to Conduit, so I am proposing these changes via my user sandbox, rather than making direct edits. I am a frequent Wikipedia contributor and strive to abide strictly by WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR and all other Wikipedia rules.
I realize I have a special obligation to avoid bias, so I'd be pleased and grateful to work with an independent editor on the proposed revisions. Please see user:BC1278 for details about me. BC1278 ( talk) 03:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)BC1278
There should be a link to the more general Download Valley page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.217.2.172 ( talk) 16:52, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
This toolbar might have got installed on your computer with some other programs and that might have changed your homepage without your knowledge.
Search.conduit.com always disguises itself as Google Official search, when you open your hijacked web browser
A number of people have installed this plug-in but then have run into roadblocks when trying to uninstall it
... directs searches through Conduit and sends results favoring some of the company's marketing partners.
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)