This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Please mention here why you feel the criticism section informing readers about a notable issue should be removed. I feel there is no reason not to include it, as it is discussed (especially with my new wording) in a neutral fact-driven way, with citations to a reliable secondary source. Any removal of this section should be discussed and defended in talk, or I will simply reverse the removal. As it happens, its been removed and re-added a few times. The last time it was deleted was by an anonymous user with a blank summary. That's unacceptable when there's been obvious back-and-forth as to its appropriateness to being included. Retran ( talk) 04:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
There seems to be a potential issue here with notability. Products like NetNanny might have been notable in the earlier days of the internet, but its not really much of a player at all anymore. Its hard to find any current coverage in the media on it, and even the older articles aren't very numerous. This is a private company, and mostly one of the "has-beens". Filtering software that is installed on the end-user machine has fallen out of favor replaced with solutions that are integrated into the OS, or solutions that are further up the line (ie: on the firewall device). I will probably nominate this in AfD in a week or so if I hear nothing in this talk section. Retran ( talk) 04:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
LegitimateAndEvenCompelling--Why do we need to state multiple times the "developed by ContentWatch, Inc. that runs under Microsoft Windows and [[Mac OS X]". It seems like multiple references as to its compatibility is a plug for the product, unnecessary filler, etc, when there's not much else to write about NetNanny. Also, it is not just "intended" for websites, it is intended for multiple internet services (most important is websites, but also IMs, etc) and this is backed up in secondary sources (such as the review you deleted when you wiped the Criticism section).-- Retran ( talk) 05:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Also the reference to an otherwise obscure parent company (ContentWatch, Inc.) is just a plug for an otherwise obscure parent company. The company that owns NetNanny certainly I'm sure enjoys the promotion they get to other more expensive products linked to content-control, etc, due to the notability NetNanny itself has. But none of their other products have wiki pages, and neither does the company. They're not just notable because they are involved in the legal structure that markets a product with a Wikipedia article. Looking at their website, there's not much else to that company. Ie... do we explain the boring legal holding companies involved in each article involving a product? All this aside, its already listed in the infobox. Shouldn't that minutia of detail just be listed there without re-emphasis in the article text? -- Retran ( talk) 05:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
LegitimateAndEvenCompelling: I don't understand why a reference to software marketed to parents filtering certain material which is "objectionable" is POV (which I wont bother to argue with, but seems a uncontroversial parents would find certain material objectionable kids) but a pretty obvious promotional reference to a trivial award given out by a magazine. Please explain--- Retran ( talk) 05:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
It was completely unintentional that I wiped out your Award section while you were discussing it on the talk page. No matter what my reasons were for wiping it (explained above and below), I apologize . I figured since you added something so significant without discussing it first that you didn't intend on elaborating. But I was wrong, my apologies.--
Retran (
talk)
06:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Another, very strong and simple reason that the award paragraph is an NPOV violation, is that it gives undue Undue weight to the award, in comparison with the rest of the article. Just because its hard to find more notable information on this product doesn't mean we should cite just anything. Also, if you look at the best-quality articles with tons of info, they never list awards in the intro paragraph. ( Lexus is a good example. it receives a billion magazine awards a year, and doesn't have any listed in the intro. but it used to a couple years ago) -- Retran ( talk) 06:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I think ..."It is intended to allow parents to block access to Internet websites having content such as pornography." has some problems.-- Retran ( talk) 10:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
1. The use of "intended" places un-necessary doubt as to the usefulness of this products' well-established abilities to filter content.-- Retran ( talk) 10:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
2. The statement also places emphasis on pornography. Maybe this emphasis is justified as such a well-known fact? But perhaps not.-- Retran ( talk) 10:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
3. Referring to it blocking "...Internet websites" is also problematic. Like almost any content-control software, it very inaccurate to state its intended for , its actually intended for any internet derived content and service. Perhaps a technical parse of this sentence wouldn't mean exactly that as it does say "intended", but it leaves a lot out. Its poor quality to imply (through exclusion) that's the only type of content it blocks. -- Retran ( talk) 10:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
4. "block access".. blocking and filtering are two related, but very distinct things, and such differences would be important to a lay-reader. Filtering means the content arrives with certain pieces of information missing, blacked out, etc. Blocked means a user is unable to perform an intended action. On a filter example, when a user visits a website with words tagged by the content-program to be filtered, those terms would be replaced with X's, or removed, etc. On a block example, a website containing terms tagged by the content-program. Take the term 'Dick' for example. If a content-control app is filtering 'Dick', "Dick went to school" would become "Xxxx went to school" or "[removed] went to school", etc. But in blocking mode, the same website containing "Dick went to school" would be replaced with "This page has been blocked by SuchAndSuch Protection Software" or whatever. As one can see, Blocking and Filtering result in vastly different outcomes in terms of end-user experience.-- Retran ( talk) 10:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I will list the problems I find in the intro sentence. "Net Nanny is content-control software developed by ContentWatch, Inc. that runs under Microsoft Windows and Mac OS X."
1. ContentWatch, Inc. is secondary in notability to NetNanny. If this were a product of CocaCola or Toyota, it might be important to list the mark/brand/corporation. But this is a case where a (as of now) notable product was bought by a not-very-well-known company. We make a mention of this company later on. But we don't always list the parent companies, etc, in the intro setence. Those can be complicated legal situations that aren't necessarily important to a reader. Take General Motors intro for example. It states "General Motors Company, also known as GM, is a United States based automaker with headquarters in Detroit, Michigan.", it does not state the legal name of the holding company, etc. Its just not very impotrant in the context of an encyclopedia article. Even if the corporate names and holding company legal names are listed on other products articles, I would argue they are typically listed improperly. The best-of articles do not do this. They might mention it later in acquisitions section, reorganizations section. It seems these short artciles on small companies and niche products list the name of the legal company because that's some of the only information to be found on places like Hoover's, etc. But that doesn't mean we should be employing the exact text of a Hoover's listing, Hoovers is a secondary source but not an encyclopedia, its purpose is collecting and describing the details of a business.-- Retran ( talk) 10:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
2. the phrase "that runs under" is kinda awkward. While the "run" a program might nowadays make sense to most readers as referring to operating a program, the "under" part will not be so clear, and might even confuse a non-technical reader as to what the "runs" means. I'm asserting that to "run a program" would make sense to non-tech readers, but "runs under Linux OS" wouldn't make sense to users without special computer technical knowledge. It might not require much technical understanding, but its definitely more than the average computer user possesses. I would think most users comprehend the meaning "compatible with" which is more descriptive anyway, but that might be kinda long and tedious in an intro sentence.-- Retran ( talk) 10:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
3."Net Nanny is content-control software" doesn't describe the situation fully either. It's a whole line of software. -- Retran ( talk) 10:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
As a start, in the interest of article quality, I have rewritten the list in prose, as this is preferred method of content. The list format also took up alot of physical space, thus it placed undue empahsis on that section when its not specifically justified that we do that. -- Retran ( talk) 11:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
The flaws section in it's current state doesn't seem at all correct. Especially "turning the protection levels up can drive someone insane" and "The outcome is often a friendless, antisocial child who has no knowledge of the real world. Multiple child suicides have been linked to NetNanny..".
I've searched but can't find any evidence or articles to support either one of these claims?
I can see that this has previously been removed, and then re-added? Xpn-security ( talk) 22:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
i forgot my passow usertalkjoshmel how do get back in i forgot my email — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshmel ( talk • contribs) 02:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
ĊĊĊĊĊĊĊ help mme logon in — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshmel ( talk • contribs) 01:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Please mention here why you feel the criticism section informing readers about a notable issue should be removed. I feel there is no reason not to include it, as it is discussed (especially with my new wording) in a neutral fact-driven way, with citations to a reliable secondary source. Any removal of this section should be discussed and defended in talk, or I will simply reverse the removal. As it happens, its been removed and re-added a few times. The last time it was deleted was by an anonymous user with a blank summary. That's unacceptable when there's been obvious back-and-forth as to its appropriateness to being included. Retran ( talk) 04:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
There seems to be a potential issue here with notability. Products like NetNanny might have been notable in the earlier days of the internet, but its not really much of a player at all anymore. Its hard to find any current coverage in the media on it, and even the older articles aren't very numerous. This is a private company, and mostly one of the "has-beens". Filtering software that is installed on the end-user machine has fallen out of favor replaced with solutions that are integrated into the OS, or solutions that are further up the line (ie: on the firewall device). I will probably nominate this in AfD in a week or so if I hear nothing in this talk section. Retran ( talk) 04:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
LegitimateAndEvenCompelling--Why do we need to state multiple times the "developed by ContentWatch, Inc. that runs under Microsoft Windows and [[Mac OS X]". It seems like multiple references as to its compatibility is a plug for the product, unnecessary filler, etc, when there's not much else to write about NetNanny. Also, it is not just "intended" for websites, it is intended for multiple internet services (most important is websites, but also IMs, etc) and this is backed up in secondary sources (such as the review you deleted when you wiped the Criticism section).-- Retran ( talk) 05:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Also the reference to an otherwise obscure parent company (ContentWatch, Inc.) is just a plug for an otherwise obscure parent company. The company that owns NetNanny certainly I'm sure enjoys the promotion they get to other more expensive products linked to content-control, etc, due to the notability NetNanny itself has. But none of their other products have wiki pages, and neither does the company. They're not just notable because they are involved in the legal structure that markets a product with a Wikipedia article. Looking at their website, there's not much else to that company. Ie... do we explain the boring legal holding companies involved in each article involving a product? All this aside, its already listed in the infobox. Shouldn't that minutia of detail just be listed there without re-emphasis in the article text? -- Retran ( talk) 05:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
LegitimateAndEvenCompelling: I don't understand why a reference to software marketed to parents filtering certain material which is "objectionable" is POV (which I wont bother to argue with, but seems a uncontroversial parents would find certain material objectionable kids) but a pretty obvious promotional reference to a trivial award given out by a magazine. Please explain--- Retran ( talk) 05:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
It was completely unintentional that I wiped out your Award section while you were discussing it on the talk page. No matter what my reasons were for wiping it (explained above and below), I apologize . I figured since you added something so significant without discussing it first that you didn't intend on elaborating. But I was wrong, my apologies.--
Retran (
talk)
06:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Another, very strong and simple reason that the award paragraph is an NPOV violation, is that it gives undue Undue weight to the award, in comparison with the rest of the article. Just because its hard to find more notable information on this product doesn't mean we should cite just anything. Also, if you look at the best-quality articles with tons of info, they never list awards in the intro paragraph. ( Lexus is a good example. it receives a billion magazine awards a year, and doesn't have any listed in the intro. but it used to a couple years ago) -- Retran ( talk) 06:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I think ..."It is intended to allow parents to block access to Internet websites having content such as pornography." has some problems.-- Retran ( talk) 10:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
1. The use of "intended" places un-necessary doubt as to the usefulness of this products' well-established abilities to filter content.-- Retran ( talk) 10:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
2. The statement also places emphasis on pornography. Maybe this emphasis is justified as such a well-known fact? But perhaps not.-- Retran ( talk) 10:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
3. Referring to it blocking "...Internet websites" is also problematic. Like almost any content-control software, it very inaccurate to state its intended for , its actually intended for any internet derived content and service. Perhaps a technical parse of this sentence wouldn't mean exactly that as it does say "intended", but it leaves a lot out. Its poor quality to imply (through exclusion) that's the only type of content it blocks. -- Retran ( talk) 10:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
4. "block access".. blocking and filtering are two related, but very distinct things, and such differences would be important to a lay-reader. Filtering means the content arrives with certain pieces of information missing, blacked out, etc. Blocked means a user is unable to perform an intended action. On a filter example, when a user visits a website with words tagged by the content-program to be filtered, those terms would be replaced with X's, or removed, etc. On a block example, a website containing terms tagged by the content-program. Take the term 'Dick' for example. If a content-control app is filtering 'Dick', "Dick went to school" would become "Xxxx went to school" or "[removed] went to school", etc. But in blocking mode, the same website containing "Dick went to school" would be replaced with "This page has been blocked by SuchAndSuch Protection Software" or whatever. As one can see, Blocking and Filtering result in vastly different outcomes in terms of end-user experience.-- Retran ( talk) 10:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I will list the problems I find in the intro sentence. "Net Nanny is content-control software developed by ContentWatch, Inc. that runs under Microsoft Windows and Mac OS X."
1. ContentWatch, Inc. is secondary in notability to NetNanny. If this were a product of CocaCola or Toyota, it might be important to list the mark/brand/corporation. But this is a case where a (as of now) notable product was bought by a not-very-well-known company. We make a mention of this company later on. But we don't always list the parent companies, etc, in the intro setence. Those can be complicated legal situations that aren't necessarily important to a reader. Take General Motors intro for example. It states "General Motors Company, also known as GM, is a United States based automaker with headquarters in Detroit, Michigan.", it does not state the legal name of the holding company, etc. Its just not very impotrant in the context of an encyclopedia article. Even if the corporate names and holding company legal names are listed on other products articles, I would argue they are typically listed improperly. The best-of articles do not do this. They might mention it later in acquisitions section, reorganizations section. It seems these short artciles on small companies and niche products list the name of the legal company because that's some of the only information to be found on places like Hoover's, etc. But that doesn't mean we should be employing the exact text of a Hoover's listing, Hoovers is a secondary source but not an encyclopedia, its purpose is collecting and describing the details of a business.-- Retran ( talk) 10:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
2. the phrase "that runs under" is kinda awkward. While the "run" a program might nowadays make sense to most readers as referring to operating a program, the "under" part will not be so clear, and might even confuse a non-technical reader as to what the "runs" means. I'm asserting that to "run a program" would make sense to non-tech readers, but "runs under Linux OS" wouldn't make sense to users without special computer technical knowledge. It might not require much technical understanding, but its definitely more than the average computer user possesses. I would think most users comprehend the meaning "compatible with" which is more descriptive anyway, but that might be kinda long and tedious in an intro sentence.-- Retran ( talk) 10:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
3."Net Nanny is content-control software" doesn't describe the situation fully either. It's a whole line of software. -- Retran ( talk) 10:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
As a start, in the interest of article quality, I have rewritten the list in prose, as this is preferred method of content. The list format also took up alot of physical space, thus it placed undue empahsis on that section when its not specifically justified that we do that. -- Retran ( talk) 11:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
The flaws section in it's current state doesn't seem at all correct. Especially "turning the protection levels up can drive someone insane" and "The outcome is often a friendless, antisocial child who has no knowledge of the real world. Multiple child suicides have been linked to NetNanny..".
I've searched but can't find any evidence or articles to support either one of these claims?
I can see that this has previously been removed, and then re-added? Xpn-security ( talk) 22:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
i forgot my passow usertalkjoshmel how do get back in i forgot my email — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshmel ( talk • contribs) 02:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
ĊĊĊĊĊĊĊ help mme logon in — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshmel ( talk • contribs) 01:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)