This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Zinc Inc. 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 was nominated for deletion on 7 August 2015. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Requesting that the following be removed: “Cotap is a functional spam/data-mining service that specializes in gathering work e-mail addresses via mass marketing social-engineering fake messages that indicate someone in their work e-mail domain has signed up the target and for the target to confirm and install the app.” and updated to the below:
“In September 2014, Cotap added People and Group Directories to the app. The People Directory autopopulates with others with the same corporate email domain, making connecting with coworkers easy. A user’s most active contacts and groups can be pinned to the top of the Directory, making it even faster to connect with those you communicate with most. Cotap integrates into your company directory so you don't have to worry about swapping phone numbers, and to help coworkers find other coworkers, Cotap sends out Join Notification emails to help employees connect.”
The current information on the page is from a questionable source, lacking meaningful editorial oversight. Specifically, Wikipedia categorizes it as “self-published source” which includes: “books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), Internet forum postings, and tweets.”
The suggested content comes from the below news sources, which are reliable sources and have reported on Cotap features and functionality. These sources are not based on public opinion, which is often inaccurate, as is the case with the current cited Spiceworks forum posting.
From TechRepublic:
“The app launched in October 2013 with several features that Patterson said make the app simple and intuitive for workplace use. For one, the app doesn't require phones numbers, unlike popular consumer apps like WhatsApp. "It integrates into your company directory so that you don't have to worry about swapping phone numbers," he said, in case someone doesn't have the numbers they need, or doesn't want to give theirs out. The app matches domain names in email addresses, which also means that as people in the corporate world might be more comfortable identifying themselves with a work email address, they can do that. The other benefit, Patterson said, to not using phone numbers, is that phone numbers are specific to devices. With Cotap, the app can be installed across devices, meaning that co-workers don't have to be at their desks or next to a certain device to receive messages.” [1]
http://www.techrepublic.com/article/cotap-offers-simple-secure-mobile-messaging-to-business-team/
From GigaOm Research:
“Cotap has added People and Group Directories, making it easier to connect with people. The People Directory autopopulates with others with the same corporate email domain, making that easy. A user’s most active contacts and groups can be pinned to the top of the directory list making it fast to connect.” [2]
http://research.gigaom.com/2014/09/cotap-v2-0-shows-where-work-chat-is-headed/
Thanks, Paulharrer ( talk) 23:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- The material is negative in the most basics of definitions of the word 'negative'. Less than 10 minutes of time on Google searching Cotap Spam ( https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=cotap%20spam) will yield plenty of results from web sites you may deem worthy of being used as legitimate sources. I myself just had to black list multiple domain names that Cotap is using to send out spam emails trying to convince the recipient that other people in our company are using Cotap's product when infact, we are not using any of Cotap's products and have never had any sort of business relationship with Cotap. The fact that this is not the first time I have had to blacklist domain names in our firewall to stop the misleading emails from Cotap trying to trick our users into thinking someone from our company is trying to communicate with them via Cotap's products is plenty of proof to me that their tactics are lacking in business scruples at best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.218.17.193 ( talk) 22:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
References
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
More has happened since this article was written: [1], [2], [3], [4]. ~ KvnG 14:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
See more at Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page).
http://community.spiceworks.com/topic/839204-cotap-spam?page=3#entry-4837688
Len0811 (
talk)
13:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I do not agree that forums are not reliable: forums like SpiceWorks represent a broad, very diverse slice of the system administration community, and when many and varied persons there post that something (like Cotap sending them UCE - Unsolicited Commercial Email) is happening, it's much more reliable a citation than a "press-release"-like article on TheNextWeb, TechCrunch or VentureBeat. Also, I do not agree that the other sites I cited (like TheDailyScam or Discard.Email) are "non-neutral": they are run by uninterested 3rd parties and therefore are perfectly neutral. Durval talk 12:58, 06 August 2015 (UTC)
How does a company posting it's own PR and getting upset about other people "correcting" said PR count as "neutral" then? If that is the case, nothing should ever appear on Wikipedia until verified by some identified and qualified group of gate keepers. Or are there already gatekeepers on here bowing down to some "sources" and throwing their toys out over others? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.121.241.164 ( talk) 13:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Regarding WP:RS - in that case, this entire article should be removed and the gatekeeping being done by Canterbury Tail shows that there is bias on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.121.241.164 ( talk) 13:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Canterbury Tail, you don't seem to even know what Spam is. Read the wonderful article on....Wikipedia of all place: /info/en/?search=Spamming As for truth vs reliable sources. This is one of the things that makes Wikipedia questionable. There are gatekeepers who decide what is reliable, Canterbury appears to be one of them. It is not a matter of what is verifiable, but who else is saying it. A bit like saying Fox News must be truthful because it is a well established media outlet and watched by many who swear by it. Well that proves nothing. Cotap are sending out emails which are classed as spam by definition. There mechanism of expanding their customer base is built on that very act of sending out spam. It is not up for discussion any more than looking at a blue sky and calling it blue! Now I know why when it comes to articles about companies and certain politically sensitive issue, I trust wikipedia about as much as Fox news!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.121.241.164 ( talk) 15:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Also, Canterbury, are you actually admitting Wikipedia is about sites that appear to offer reliability and have no interest in actual truth. Given that you said "Is it true? Maybe. However on Wikipedia we are concerned about reliable sources, not "truth"". So providing a site is very popular and lots of people follow it, again say Fox News or even The Onion (should there be anyone who "believes" satire), then that would be ok to source, but not real people in a real serious forum discussing real issues???? I'm glad I never responded to Wikipedia funding requests, Wikipedia should be taken with a huge grain of salt unless it is a highly academic article written and edited by well established academics. Which means there should be no other articles on this site other than those factual academic ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.121.241.164 ( talk) 15:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
But now the article is semi protected, all references to it being a disputed article removed from the article itself (leaving the soft promotional material in place) and no genuine concerns have been taken into account. Gatekeepers indeed. Wikipedia = Joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.121.241.164 ( talk) 17:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
An administrator has raised some concerns about this article at WP:ANI#Cotap Spamming. EdJohnston ( talk) 14:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Lots of people have raised complaints about this article. It is a marketing stub for a gang of spammers who are irritating many a sysadmin. Time for the article to be removed rather than locked for modification by Wikipedia's corporate lacky gate keepers. Just delete it. Simple! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.121.241.164 ( talk) 14:08, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Zinc Inc. 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 was nominated for deletion on 7 August 2015. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Requesting that the following be removed: “Cotap is a functional spam/data-mining service that specializes in gathering work e-mail addresses via mass marketing social-engineering fake messages that indicate someone in their work e-mail domain has signed up the target and for the target to confirm and install the app.” and updated to the below:
“In September 2014, Cotap added People and Group Directories to the app. The People Directory autopopulates with others with the same corporate email domain, making connecting with coworkers easy. A user’s most active contacts and groups can be pinned to the top of the Directory, making it even faster to connect with those you communicate with most. Cotap integrates into your company directory so you don't have to worry about swapping phone numbers, and to help coworkers find other coworkers, Cotap sends out Join Notification emails to help employees connect.”
The current information on the page is from a questionable source, lacking meaningful editorial oversight. Specifically, Wikipedia categorizes it as “self-published source” which includes: “books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), Internet forum postings, and tweets.”
The suggested content comes from the below news sources, which are reliable sources and have reported on Cotap features and functionality. These sources are not based on public opinion, which is often inaccurate, as is the case with the current cited Spiceworks forum posting.
From TechRepublic:
“The app launched in October 2013 with several features that Patterson said make the app simple and intuitive for workplace use. For one, the app doesn't require phones numbers, unlike popular consumer apps like WhatsApp. "It integrates into your company directory so that you don't have to worry about swapping phone numbers," he said, in case someone doesn't have the numbers they need, or doesn't want to give theirs out. The app matches domain names in email addresses, which also means that as people in the corporate world might be more comfortable identifying themselves with a work email address, they can do that. The other benefit, Patterson said, to not using phone numbers, is that phone numbers are specific to devices. With Cotap, the app can be installed across devices, meaning that co-workers don't have to be at their desks or next to a certain device to receive messages.” [1]
http://www.techrepublic.com/article/cotap-offers-simple-secure-mobile-messaging-to-business-team/
From GigaOm Research:
“Cotap has added People and Group Directories, making it easier to connect with people. The People Directory autopopulates with others with the same corporate email domain, making that easy. A user’s most active contacts and groups can be pinned to the top of the directory list making it fast to connect.” [2]
http://research.gigaom.com/2014/09/cotap-v2-0-shows-where-work-chat-is-headed/
Thanks, Paulharrer ( talk) 23:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- The material is negative in the most basics of definitions of the word 'negative'. Less than 10 minutes of time on Google searching Cotap Spam ( https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=cotap%20spam) will yield plenty of results from web sites you may deem worthy of being used as legitimate sources. I myself just had to black list multiple domain names that Cotap is using to send out spam emails trying to convince the recipient that other people in our company are using Cotap's product when infact, we are not using any of Cotap's products and have never had any sort of business relationship with Cotap. The fact that this is not the first time I have had to blacklist domain names in our firewall to stop the misleading emails from Cotap trying to trick our users into thinking someone from our company is trying to communicate with them via Cotap's products is plenty of proof to me that their tactics are lacking in business scruples at best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.218.17.193 ( talk) 22:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
References
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
More has happened since this article was written: [1], [2], [3], [4]. ~ KvnG 14:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
See more at Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page).
http://community.spiceworks.com/topic/839204-cotap-spam?page=3#entry-4837688
Len0811 (
talk)
13:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I do not agree that forums are not reliable: forums like SpiceWorks represent a broad, very diverse slice of the system administration community, and when many and varied persons there post that something (like Cotap sending them UCE - Unsolicited Commercial Email) is happening, it's much more reliable a citation than a "press-release"-like article on TheNextWeb, TechCrunch or VentureBeat. Also, I do not agree that the other sites I cited (like TheDailyScam or Discard.Email) are "non-neutral": they are run by uninterested 3rd parties and therefore are perfectly neutral. Durval talk 12:58, 06 August 2015 (UTC)
How does a company posting it's own PR and getting upset about other people "correcting" said PR count as "neutral" then? If that is the case, nothing should ever appear on Wikipedia until verified by some identified and qualified group of gate keepers. Or are there already gatekeepers on here bowing down to some "sources" and throwing their toys out over others? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.121.241.164 ( talk) 13:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Regarding WP:RS - in that case, this entire article should be removed and the gatekeeping being done by Canterbury Tail shows that there is bias on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.121.241.164 ( talk) 13:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Canterbury Tail, you don't seem to even know what Spam is. Read the wonderful article on....Wikipedia of all place: /info/en/?search=Spamming As for truth vs reliable sources. This is one of the things that makes Wikipedia questionable. There are gatekeepers who decide what is reliable, Canterbury appears to be one of them. It is not a matter of what is verifiable, but who else is saying it. A bit like saying Fox News must be truthful because it is a well established media outlet and watched by many who swear by it. Well that proves nothing. Cotap are sending out emails which are classed as spam by definition. There mechanism of expanding their customer base is built on that very act of sending out spam. It is not up for discussion any more than looking at a blue sky and calling it blue! Now I know why when it comes to articles about companies and certain politically sensitive issue, I trust wikipedia about as much as Fox news!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.121.241.164 ( talk) 15:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Also, Canterbury, are you actually admitting Wikipedia is about sites that appear to offer reliability and have no interest in actual truth. Given that you said "Is it true? Maybe. However on Wikipedia we are concerned about reliable sources, not "truth"". So providing a site is very popular and lots of people follow it, again say Fox News or even The Onion (should there be anyone who "believes" satire), then that would be ok to source, but not real people in a real serious forum discussing real issues???? I'm glad I never responded to Wikipedia funding requests, Wikipedia should be taken with a huge grain of salt unless it is a highly academic article written and edited by well established academics. Which means there should be no other articles on this site other than those factual academic ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.121.241.164 ( talk) 15:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
But now the article is semi protected, all references to it being a disputed article removed from the article itself (leaving the soft promotional material in place) and no genuine concerns have been taken into account. Gatekeepers indeed. Wikipedia = Joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.121.241.164 ( talk) 17:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
An administrator has raised some concerns about this article at WP:ANI#Cotap Spamming. EdJohnston ( talk) 14:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Lots of people have raised complaints about this article. It is a marketing stub for a gang of spammers who are irritating many a sysadmin. Time for the article to be removed rather than locked for modification by Wikipedia's corporate lacky gate keepers. Just delete it. Simple! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.121.241.164 ( talk) 14:08, 10 September 2015 (UTC)