Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:28, 21 August 2015

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 toolbar business is now part of a different, publicly traded company called Perion. Information about the current business activities of Conduit should be made more prominent and information about the former toolbar business should be moved to the History section. Previously offered services can be integrated 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 Misplaced Pages policies including:

• WP:NPOV violation
• extensive use of unreliable sources such online forums. See WP:NOTRELIABLE. Online discussion boards ("self-published sources") can't be used as Misplaced Pages sources to make claims about third parties. See WP:SOCIALMEDIA. Self-published social media citations should be removed, such as:
• most of the supporting sources for these claims cited are personal opinion pieces/advice columns and violate WP:NOTRELIABLE or product instructional manuals in violation of WP:NOR, not third-party sources that qualify as reliable citations WP:SOURCES. Opinion/review/product manual citations should be removed, such as:

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).

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 and "potentially unwanted."

3) Some major mistakes throughout the article, such as:

• falsely attributing the 2015 venture financing of a completely different company (Startup Conductor) to Conduit: "In 2015 Conduit raised $27 million in capital."
• listing an out-of-date business model as current one: "At first Conduit's partners provide their apps and use of the app-creation platform to users for free, but requires a percentage of the advertising revenue generated from apps created with its software." I replaced this with a newer source that lists the current business model.

I've also corrected citation formats. Some citations included large chunks of text, in addition to the source, which is an improper work-around to include extraneous information in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BC1278 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages contributor and strive to abide strictly by WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR and all other Misplaced Pages 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.

A revised version of this request is at: Talk:Conduit (publisher network and platform)(section)

BC1278 (talk) 19:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC)BC1278

Disagree with assessment

Grump International: This article's content was almost 100% taken from Conduit (publisher network and platform), a five year-old article.

That article has been split in two because it's about a software platform that Conduit created which was sold and is no longer in operation. So the content about the company was divided into a new article by Graeme Bartlett, a Misplaced Pages English language admin, not by me. He based it on a version I created in a sandbox, but he reviewed it first.

If you look at older versions of Conduit (publisher network and platform) you will find 95% of this content, which was created and vetted by a couple of dozen editors over the course of five years. The article was closely followed by two other Misplaced Pages English admins over a period of years - Diannaa and and all this content was in it, except for the latest developments, such as the acquisition of a new company, Keeprz.

There are substantial criticisms of the company in the article, not at all what you would see in a news release. Every fact is backed by a reliable source. There's no promotional language that violates WP:NPOV so far as I can tell (please tell me if there is and I will suggest a change), there's no original research WP:NOR and all sources are verified WP:V

I have a WP:COI and am not making direct edits. Presumably as an English language Misplaced Pages admin, Graeme Bartlett has sound judgment as to whether an article merits stand-alone.

If you wish to make changes to the article to improve then please do. But there are dozens of high-quality, reliable sources abut the company, which make it clear it passes ] It is one of the largest technology companies in Israel, was once the largest Internet company in Israel, and one of only a few dozen Internet companies to achieve more than a one billion dollar valuation. All this is amply sourced from the likes of The Wall Street Journal, Forbes, the Financial Times, Inc. Magazine, the Economist, etc. I've also written many articles for Misplaced Pages and it isn't even a close case that this company passes WP:NOT.

I think User: Grump International is suggesting speedy deletion because they are unduly influenced by the fact that I have disclosed my WP:COI. Nut that's exactly what I'm supposed to do under WP:COI -- disclose and make suggested changes on the Talk page. As you know, 99% of COI changes are never disclosed. You shouldn't penalize those that are abiding by the official policies as it will just encourage COI editors to never disclose.

If you think there's an issue with any of the article, please make specific suggestions. I'd suggest you try to engage with Graeme Bartlett, Diannaa and Jeremy112233, the three Misplaced Pages English language admins, before deleting an article that's the work of so many people over so many years. BC1278 (talk) 22:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)BC1278

Yeah, nobody nominated this for deletion. What are you even talking about? Anyhow, the language isn't neutral, but no one is arguing against Notability. This lengthy reply is a bit weird, though perhaps explained via the expectations of your employer: I read how you feel how "improvement banners" somehow threaten your livelihood on the toolbar talk page. If so, no one is stopping you from fixing the article: feel free to gut the article of non-neutral material and I'm sure the tag will be removed. The COI tag, though, would require someone other than you to read through it and give it their go-ahead. I would advise against stating that editors here are biased against COI editors; in most cases the bias comes from the originator of the content, not the reviewer. Grump International (talk) 01:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

1. "How do I uninstall Search Protect by Conduit from my computer?". Norton. 2014-07-14. Retrieved 2014-07-11.
2. Govind, Rajesh (19 February 2013). "How to uninstall Conduit Toolbar and change the IE10 homepage from "search.conduit.com" to the original one". Microsoft Community. Microsoft. Retrieved 18 August 2013. This toolbar might have got installed on your computer with some other programs and that might have changed your homepage without your knowledge.
3. "How to Remove Conduit Search Toolbar and search.conduit.com redirect?". Anvisoft. 2013-06-07. Archived from the original on 2 July 2013. Retrieved 2013-08-13. Search.conduit.com always disguises itself as Google Official search, when you open your hijacked web browser
4. Kessler, Topher (7 January 2011). "How to remove the Conduit 'Community Toolbar' in OS X". CNET. CBS Interactive. Archived from the original on 11 October 2012. Retrieved 14 August 2013. A number of people have installed this plug-in but then have run into roadblocks when trying to uninstall it
5. "PUP.Optional.Conduit removal instructions". Malware Removal Guides. 2013-08-07. Retrieved 2013-10-12.
6. ', Kapersky Labs support pages, December 19, 2013.
7. Nobels, Ethan C. (2010-12-15). "So long, uTorrent". First Arkansas News. Archived from the original on 29 September 2012. Retrieved 2013-04-30. ... directs searches through Conduit and sends results favoring some of the company's marketing partners.
8. "Uninstalling Toolbars, 'Free Trials'". U-T San Diego. 26 October 2013. Retrieved 14 November 2013.
9. Payal Dhar (21 October 2013). "A browser hijack is no joyride". Financial Chronicle. Retrieved 14 November 2013.
10. Pilici, Stelian (January 21, 2013). "Remove Conduit Toolbar and search.conduit.com (Uninstall Guide)". Malware tips. Retrieved July 13, 2014.
11. Honorof, Marshall (February 11, 2014). "How to Remove Conduit Search Adware". Tom's Guide. Retrieved September 11, 2014. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
12. Griffith, Erin (September 14, 2012). "Conduit Turns Toolbar Riches Into Massive Dividend". PandoDaily. Retrieved 2014-07-14.
13. Keenan, Thomas P. (August 1, 2014). Technocreep: The Surrender of Privacy and the Capitalization of Intimacy. Greystone Books. ISBN 9781771641227. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
14. Yuliya Chernova (February 12, 2015). "Startup Conductor Lands $27M to Help Brands Emerge in Web Searches". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved March 16, 2015.
15. John Pullen (May 10, 2012). "There's an App Maker for That". Entrepreneur Magazine. Retrieved March 13, 2013. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)