Talk:Ghostery
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for deletion on 10 June 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
Archives (Index) |
This page is archived by ClueBot III.
|
Unsubstantiated severe claim in criticism section since at least 2015
edit- reference links cited are no longer valid and can't support claims of the editors from 2018 - Bias/prejudice editors on Wiki overseeing Ghostery section = Simple updates such as current extension information are reversed by "others" to shape a negative opinion about this extension - Denial of Edward Snowden's shout out to this extension - Entire criticism section needs to be deleted as it no longer has any valid references but bias senior editors allowed it to remain. - Misleading and erroneous opinions are contained in the criticism section - False accusations never proven remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newb787 (talk • contribs) 06:56, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
This was brought up already in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ghostery/Archives/2015#Criticism_Section and still applies.
In the Criticism section, one sentence reads: "GhostRank [...] sent that information back to advertisers so they could better formulate their ads to avoid being blocked.[20]" (Emphasis mine.)
The first part is as far as I know uncontested, the second has been contradicted by the makers many, many times, is not further qualified, explained or supported in any way in the referenced article and is basically unsubstantiated conjecture.
(I am not affiliated with the company or the extension and haven't used it in years because I don't need it and am uncomfortable with their affiliations, even if I personally don't think they're immoral.)
--2003:C9:4711:4B00:A0D9:D261:9830:FF1B (talk) 12:19, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- See WP:FALSEBALANCE. We don't delete unfavorable information just because the article subject doesn't like it. MrOllie (talk) 13:20, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
- That does not address the statements at all and appears to not have even made an attempt to understand them. --2003:C9:4727:6B00:E2D5:5AC0:B816:E590 (talk) 13:39, 24 May 2023 (UTC)