Talk:Conduit toolbar/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Request for assistance correcting poorly source material

Update. As requested above, I've identified sourcing that provides the name a description of this product as its now operated by Perion Network, so the article can be updated and renamed accordingly. I created a draft at User:BC1278/Perion CodeFuel 66.65.87.246 (talk) 06:18, 25 September 2015 (UTC)BC1278

As described above, I have a business relationship with Conduit, and they pay me for consulting, and therefore have a WP:COI, so I won't make direct edits on this article. But I've written and edited a bunch for Wikipedia. See User:BC1278 for details. This article is a complete mess, filled mostly with unreliable sourcing, such as online forums. It has come under attack dozens of times and was protected by two admins over the years, User:Diannaa and User:Jeremy112233, who removed much unreliable and unsupported material. But it's mostly all found it's way back into the article.

I therefore proposed an update/redraft and User: Graeme Bartlett, an admin, decided to split the article into two. Information about the company, which sold the website toolbar business this original article is about, can now be found at Conduit (company).

But the problems with this article remain, so I have gone through it line by line to separate reliable from unreliable sourcing and its affect on content. The resulting redraft is at: User:BC1278/Conduit (publisher network and platform) and explained in detail, below. There's plenty of strong criticism of the toolbar platform program still in this redraft. But the fact that there are some reliable sources for criticism doesn't mean any source can now be used, even if it's textbook bias WP:BIASED.

• NOTE: I have fixed various tense issues below without notation to reflect the past tense that User: Graeme Bartlett changed the article into in the intro, but didn't follow through with in the entire article. e.g. Instead of "has" now says "had." But with any other significant proposed change, I've inserted a notation.

---

The Conduit toolbar was an online platform that allowed web publishers to create custom toolbars, web apps, and mobile apps at no cost. It was developed by Conduit Inc. but in 2013 demerged to Perion Network, a NASDAQ public company. Web apps and pieces of content developed through Conduit's platform were distributed and exchanged online via the Conduit App Marketplace. About 60 million users used apps from the marketplace on a daily basis.

• NOTE: The first part of the following sentence should be deleted because online forums ("self-published sources") should not be cited as sources. See WP:SOCIALMEDIA. The cited source, in fact, is a tech manual, not an online forum anyway, and does not even call the Conduit platform "malware." It simply gives instructions about deleting it. There are online forum citations elsewhere in the article that do call the program "malware" but self-published sources are never suitable under WP: RELIABLE

• NOTE: The second part of the following sentence should be removed because the source is not a "news outlet" as referred to in the sentence. It looks like a single author blog being used to promote the sale of software to remove adware and other programs from computers. As it has no editorial review process, it does not qualify as a suitable source, WP:RELIABLE especially for such a highly contentious allegation, disputed by the company. (It is also only one source -- not several as the plural "outlets" states.) It is not a "news organization" with a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" WP:NEWSORG and describing it as such (in the plural) is grossly inaccurate.

Conduit's toolbars have been described in online forums and news outlets as malware

ARTICLE SHOULD PICK UP HERE:

Conduit's toolbars have been described as difficult to remove.

• NOTE: the following source should be removed because it 1) does not support any of the previous statements if you read it (it says the program is ""adware" and 2) it is an instruction manual for a piece of software, not a reliable source. WP:RELIABLE

• NOTE: the following statement was unsourced. But there are sources lower in the article supporting make similar statements. I found two reliable sources for the first contention, but since it's phrasing is contentious, I placed it in quotation marks.

It was also described by several technology columnists as a "browser hijacker."

• NOTE:: The following part of the previous sentence should be removed because it is unsourced. Later in the article, an online discussion board is in used to support this assertion, but that's not a reliable source.

and rootkit capabilities.

Conduit began to shift away from this part of its business in late 2013 when it spun off its toolbar division into Perion Network through a reverse merger. After the deal, Conduit shareholders owned 81% of Perion's existing shares, though both Perion and Conduit remain independent companies.

History

• NOTE The following sentence should be removed because it is superfluous to the subject of the software platform.

In 2010 Conduit then-president Adam Boyden was featured in Forbes magazine online, in which he discussed the link between successful social gaming and marketing principles.

ARTICLE SHOULD PICK UP HERE:

In 2010 there were more than 100 million toolbars being powered by Conduit that were used at least once a month, which put Conduit at #29 on Google’s list of top 1,000 sites on the Internet that year. In May 2011, Conduit completed the $45 million acquisition of Israeli startup Wibiya, an engagement platform that enabled publishers to integrate a variety of web applications on their site via the Wibiya Bar product.

During this time Conduit moved away from the toolbar part of its business in order to focus on its mobile and browser engagement offerings. Ingrid Lunden of TechCrunch wrote that by spinning off the Client Connect business, the "split divided the company in two, with one part focusing on its mobile and engagement business and run by Shilo, and the other, Client Connect, merging with Perion". Lunden said further that, "Less than a month after browser-toolbar and mobile startup Conduit merged its Client Connect division with Perion, the company is making another change to its business. Conduit has announced that it will be discontinuing Wibiya, the social browser toolbar service that it acquired in 2011 for $45 million, as it shifts further away from its toolbar business." In late 2013 Conduit was valued at $1.5 billion.

Technology

Browser

• NOTE: The following sentence should be deleted because the facts have already been stated twice before.

Until 2013, one of Conduit's main businesses revolved around downloadable toolbars.

ARTICLE SHOULD PICK UP HERE:

Conduit allowed publishers to create and distribute their own toolbars for web browsers.

• NOTE: The following sentence should be deleted because it supported only by two online discussion board ("self-published sources") that cannot be cited as sources. See WP:SOCIALMEDIA.

Typically the toolbars were installed with another software product on which the toolbar was a piggyback program,

• NOTE: The following statements are unsourced and should be removed.

with users given the option to not install the toolbar. Browsers that initially supported the toolbars included Internet Explorer, Firefox, and Safari. Google Chrome was added as a supported browser in 2011.

ARTICLE SHOULD PICK UP HERE:

Examples of toolbars included a Zynga-designed toolbar that helped Farmville enthusiasts keep up-to-date with the status of their game; another was a toolbar from eBay that provided auction updates. The content was customized to the individual toolbar rather than generalized for all users. The toolbar was also be used for general information distribution, which was used by companies to engage in marketing campaigns. Other companies that developed Conduit toolbars include Major League Baseball, Greenpeace, and Lufthansa. Some of the companies and brands that used Conduit's platform were Major League Baseball, Time Warner Cable, Fox News, Zynga, Chelsea Football Club, Groupon, Travelocity, µTorrent, and The Weather Channel.

• NOTE: The first part of the following sentence ("online forums") should be deleted because online forums ("self-published sources") should not be cited as sources. See WP:SOCIALMEDIA. The cited source, in fact, is a tech manual, not an online forum anyway, and does not even call the Conduit platform "malware." It simply gives instructions about deleting it. There are online forum citations elsewhere in the article that do call the program "malware" but self-published sources are never suitable under WP: RELIABLE

• NOTE: The second part of the following sentence ("news outlets") should be deleted because the citation is to a first-person opinion column, not the news section of the website, and therefore should not be represented as a "news outlet." As per WP:NEWSORG "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." Even if it were cite, which is not allowed, the opinion column does not call the program a "browser hijaker" - it says it "may" or may not be "spyware or adware".

• NOTE: The entire following sentence is a repeat of a sentence already in the first section of the article. It should be removed as repetition. Or, the previous mention should be removed and this one kept. It comes off as an attack piece if the same negative contention is repeated in multiple parts of the article.

The toolbars have been described in online forums and news outlets as a browser hijack

• NOTE: The following source should be deleted as supporting this sentence because it is a book that only offers a quote from one online forum - but even that quote does not call the program a "browser hijaker." Even when quoted in a book, an online forum discussion, with no further backing, is still an unreliable source. Here that source doesn't even say what is represented in the sentence.

• NOTE: The following source should be deleted because as support for this statement because it is a first person opinion column, not a news outlet as represented, and nowhere calls the program a "browser hijaker."

• NOTE: The following source should be deleted because as support for this statement because it is a first-peron column, not a "news outlet" as represented, and nowhere calls the program a "browser hijaker."

• NOTE: The following source is a small website in India. Since this claim is already made in the introduction, with better sourcing, I moved the source to the statement in the introduction. I think it should be removed here along with the entire repetitive sentence.

• NOTE: The following sentence is a repeat of a sentence already in the first section of the article. It should be removed as repetition. Or, the previous mention should be removed and this one kept. It comes off as an attack piece if the same negative contention is repeated in multiple parts of the article.

The toolbar has been described by some reviewers as difficult to remove.

• NOTE: The following source should be deleted because it is an online forum.

SOURCING SHOULD PICK UP HERE IF THE SENTENCE IS KEPT:'

ARTICLE SHOULD PICK UP HERE:

Most of Conduit's revenue comes from paid referrals from its search engine.

• NOTE: The following sentence is unsourced and should be removed.

Conduit toolbars are automatically downloaded alongside the download of free software, in order to help sites that provide software for free with a form of monetization.

• NOTE: The following sentence should be removed because the sole source is a book directly quoting a single online discussion board.

Conduit toolbars have rootkit capabilities that hook the toolbar deep into operating systems and can perform browser hijacking.

ARTICLE SHOULD PICK UP HERE:

• NOTE: Source says "some" not "many" removal tools are considered to be malware.

Some Conduit removal tools are considered to be malware themselves. While not a virus, the program is referred to as a "potentially unwanted program" by some in the computer industry.

References

• NOTE: The following external link section should be removed because the software is no longer offered by this company. It is defunct.

Paid editor

This article now has a paid editor. Nmwalsh (talk) 10:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Paid editing conflict

Nmwalsh I suggest you settle this elsewhere, and not on Wikipedia. BC1278 was paid by Conduit, as per his admission, to create this page in this manner. If Perion is unhappy with it, I'd suggest they contact Conduit to ask why their paid editor made this page they way it is, rather than bothering the volunteers here. You're both being paid to create the page in different manners; though I must say, that if Perion owns the property, they might want to ask why Conduit has been spending money trying to undercut them on Wikipedia like this. The Dezider (talk) 00:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

The Talk page of this article is exactly where Nmwalsh should be making requests for changes, updates, corrections, as per official policy of WP: COI. I made no direct edits here. This article was not created by me. It's a renamed article that goes back five years. I asked for updates to the existing article and various editors weighed in over a period of weeks. You can read the history above in Talk and by looking at View History. An admin decided to split the article in two and wanted to rename this part to make it more current; and another independent editor, User: Gpeja spent a great deal of time doing his own resea rch and reviewing the updates I suggested to create a redraft. That editor has generously agreed to continue to make updates if Perion provides references to support changes. Wikipedia actively encourages editors with conflicts of interest to use the Talk pages to request edits to improve articles, as per WP: COI So again, Nmwalsh is doing exactly the right thing making requests here. I'd suggest that he attempt to be as specific as possible with suggested language changes to various sentences and provide citations to support the changes.BC1278 (talk) 02:25, 15 October 2015 (UTC)BC1278

I don't understand why this section (Talk:CodeFuel#Paid editing conflict) is created. The issues with this article are being discussed in Talk:CodeFuel#Paid editor warned to revert edits. Yes, we all have right to ask questions but article quality and accuracy are the priority. Both paid editors and any volunteer editors should put time in creating quality articles firstly and then into who did what discussions. In the other words, act do not react. For example, I suggest Nmwalsh makes a version of this article in his user space where we can all contribute and edit. I also suggest he works on Perion Network article: spending time finding reliable references and moving away from promotional tone. It may also involve Perion actually creating some buzz about its products and create interest in other (third-party) reliable resources to publish something about its products. Gpeja (talk) 03:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Paid editor warned to revert edits

Gpeja I just advised the paid editor User:Nmwalsh to revert his rewrite of this article and make any suggestions he has for changes on this Talk page. As a paid editor, he may not make direct edits as per WP: COI I'm hoping he does the reversion himself quickly but if not, as per WP:COI, it would be standard practice for you or any other editor to just revert his changes entirely. I can't do so because I have a conflict of interest here.BC1278 (talk) 14:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)BC1278

I have reverted the edits. However I must point out that my client, Perion, who are the owners of the Codefuel product are very unhappy with the present article because if its many inaccuracies. They state that this article doesn't fit with Codefuel. They currently don't deal with Toolbars at all. Conduit was dealing with toolbars until they merged with Perion and then CodeFuel was born. Nmwalsh (talk) 16:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Nmwalsh Isn't DisplayFuel, a browser extension, part of CodeFuel? Isn't CodeFuel rebranded Conduit platform acquired by Perion from Conduit (company)?If you have any specific data you want to change please list it here and support it will references. Toolbars are part of both Conduit and Perion company history and part of Perion product technology. There are multiple references supporting this. If you have something more to say this wikipedia article and Perion Network article are great places to start. I am willing to help not to make Perion happy but to present facts accurately. I thought we (BC1278 and I) did a good job listing only minimal data about Conduit platform leaving plenty of room for the bright future of CodeFuel product. Unfortunately, there are no many references available about this new product. You could help finding them and we can expand this article. Looking forward working together.

Nmwalsh Thank you for step by step explanation in Talk:CodeFuel#Perion statement. The mentioned references are mostly about Perion. Is there any references (third party notable sources) about CodeFuel? The way to improve this article is to get more notable sources for CodeFuel product, explain technology behind it and expand this article. Gpeja (talk) 04:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Nmwalsh and BC1278 Could we please focus on improving the article? The last edits include some references provided in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CodeFuel&oldid=685348774#References. The idea is to focus on CodeFuel's marvelous technologies and show growth from a browser extension to a suite of solutions. It is still unclear to me what else is offered beside various extensions. I still cannot find positive buzz from users. How much money people earn using CodeFuel? Is there any reliable data about it? Are there any reviews published about CodeFuel? The control center may be interesting too. Any screen shots?Gpeja (talk) 06:36, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Perion statement

A spokesman for Perion has read your reply and would like to make the following points -

1. DisplayFuel isn't a browser extension. DisplayFuel is ad network for advertisers & publishers and its talking about banners. DisplayFuel is one of their several solutions.
2. Conduit dealt with toolbars until the merger. Once Codefuel was born the business of "Client Connect" changed. ("Client Connect" was the division of "Conduit" which merged with Perion). Codefuel is not "Conduit Toolbar". If you go to http://www.codefuel.com/ you will see what they offer. There is no mention of "Toolbars" at all.
3. Conduit is now a separate company. Perion is also, despite the merge. See the press statement - http://mail.client.shareholder.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=816599
4. It is possible to mention the Toolbars but only under History section and under "Conduit" activity, not under Technology because Perion (with CodeFuel as the Monetization Division of) doesn’t deal with toolbars any more in any form.
5. These press releases are not useable in the Article but they may explain the business activity with Cyren, Bing, Microsoft and Lenovo. http://mail.client.shareholder.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=863592. http://mail.client.shareholder.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=858163
6. There are already proofs with the references which can be seen here - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CodeFuel&oldid=685348774#References The information on this page is up to date.
7. Because Perion is a public company they may only state factual information about the company. Nmwalsh (talk) 14:12, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism

Attention Gpeja, please see note below to editor from Perion Network who blanked the company info box:

194.90.186.65 If you remove whole sections created by other editors on Wikipedia, without any reason based on Wikipedia policy, it's called "vandalism." See WP:Van That's what you've just done by removing the info box and it's been made worse because you reverted a change back after this was explained. This is called "edit warring" and it's also not allowed. WP: EW Where there is a disagreement, you have to discuss it on the Talk page -- you can't just override other editors' work.

It's only going to give you a very short term benefit to make deletions like this because they're going to get reversed by more senior editors, and the page is going to end up locked down so no one can make changes without getting permission. So please reverse your changes before this escalates and the page is locked down. It will then be much tougher for you to get updates.

You have already self-identified in the comment to your initial reversion as an editor with a conflict of interest, so you can't make direct edits to the page anyway WP:COI This blanking of the company infoxbox is the one and only change made by this IP address (there is no user name), which is called a "single purpose account" and is easily identified. It is located in Holon, Israel, the headquarters of Perion Network.

I'm trying to be helpful here -- you might have all sorts of useful information to add or correct to this entry, but you have to do it by following Wikipedia policy, even though it's cumbersome and not immediate.

If you want to make permanent changes to the page, you should leave comments on the Talk page with very specific suggestions. Go sentence by sentence. You have to provide sources for every changes you suggest or explain why sources that are already cited are incorrect or not allowable under Wikipedia policies.

You can't just say in your edit note that the company hasn't give permission to link to its website (no one ever needs permission to link to a website in any circumstance) or that all information in the entry is wrong, without specifying anything. You have to be very specific, sentence by sentence, and offer supporting sources for each fact you want to add or change.

For most editors with a COIthis takes many weeks or months, but there is already another editor, User:Gpeja who has said he will work with you on this page. He self-identified his interest on the Talk page. So you should engage in direct discussions with him. He seems very reasonable and willing to make changes if you can cite to sources.

On the other hand, if your reaction is just to blank out or delete other people's work directly, you're going to find it very difficult to get the long term result you want. BC1278 (talk) 16:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)BC1278

I would like to make it clear that the edit by 194.90.186.65 had nothing to do with me and I would like to point out that I was totally unaware of it and did not instigate it.

Conduit does not exist any more and is now called Como. See http://conduit.com/ and http://www.como.com/publisher-agreement/ (line 5). Wikipedia readers should be aware of this and this should be a part of the present article. Nmwalsh (talk) 08:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Conduit still exists as a corporate entity, which is why they have the website http://conduit.com/ and still have copyright notices and Privacy Policies on that site attributable to Conduit. I just worked with the company and User:Gpeja on Conduit (company) article at no time did the company say they had ceased to exist or even renamed themselves. I have done a thorough review of dozens of sources for that article and none indicate the company no longer exists. Como is their main brand. There's no need to mention Como in this entry. It's irrelevant. Not every corporate entity operates a brand under its legal corporate name. Is there any other issue with the article at present? I see User:Gpeja has added even more information to describe the CodeFuel product. Having read the sources, I'm not seeing any inaccuracies but if you see any, please point them out. Much of what the PR statement cites above is already covered in the article, albeit not in the exact wording they want. The blanket assertion that Conduit Connect, as a product, was instantly discontinued because it's no longer branded as toolbar by Perion, is in conflict with all the sources. I think User:Gpeja has been fair in describing how CodeFuel has evolved, but that doesn't mean the original platform, now branded a browser extension, has been discontinued. If there's a source to that effect, please cite it. This might be something Perion needs to generate press for if it's true - it would certainly be interesting if they have totally discontinued the product they gave away 80% of their company for, but there needs to be source for that.BC1278 (talk) 17:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC)BC1278

A suggestion. That you move the "Toolbar" subject from the Technology section to History section because it's not a part of the current technology of CodeFuel. It could be placed above the line - "This toolbar is a history behind a current suite of browsing and security applications."

Another addition to this section could be - "In August 2014, the company signed a three-year agreement with Bing, Microsoft’s web search engine, extending its existing partnership. The new agreement runs from January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2017. In July 2015 the name was changed from Perion Codefuel to Codefuel." References for this are "http://www.timesofisrael.com/perion-extends-microsoft-deal-ups-mobile-business/" and "http://mobilemarketingmagazine.com/perion-extends-app-partnership-with-bing/" Nmwalsh (talk) 14:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Conduit (company) (also known as Como) and Perion Network are connected to this article. Conduit toolbar is an article about past product that these companies don't offer any more. Due to its negative publicity, both companies may be concerned about their connection with it.

--Gpeja (talk) 21:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Discussion about tags...