Talk:Conduit toolbar/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

article is like advertising for the company

the article is like advertising for the company and doesn't mention unwanted addon bars that are installed on your browsers and possible problems that they bring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.152.214.255 (talk) 23:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

If you have some criticisms of the software, backed up by reliable sources, then we can add something. At present the article does not read like an advertisement for the company, and as an administrator on this wiki, I will continue to watch and make sure it stays that way. Conversely, criticisms added by PR firms or other parties will be kept out of the article, unless supported by reliable third party sources. -- Dianna (talk) 14:21, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --86.181.131.186 (talk) 13:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Conduit page is advert for spam toolbar product

It seems very much that this article is no more than a brochure promoting a company that creates aggressive advertising software, (often described as a trojan) and the article was created and is being maintained and sanitized by someone associated with it. The article, if not simply deleted, should be reviewed. Looking at edits from Beobjectiveplease (talk · contribs) it seems he has a similar role in puffing up and removing criticism from articles on a group of software companies, including Opera Solutions, WiO, Wibiya... Barsoomian (talk) 15:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Barsoomian and I think it would be better to delete the article.--Fox1942 (talk) 05:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I disagree; this looks like a neutrally-worded simple article with plenty of independent sources. Note user:Beobjectiveplease has not edited this article since June, so can hardly be classed as a gatekeeper. --Dianna (talk) 05:42, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

There isn't anything more Beobjectiveplease needs to do, as it is already a perfect brochure for the company. Barsoomian (talk) 06:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I've had a go at editing the article; as far as I'm concerned it's now categorically not a brochure for the company. (Of course, if you want to go find a little sourced criticism of the company and add that, that would be cool too.) - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 12:13, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, it is still an advertisement for the company.--Fox1942 (talk) 17:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Explain? What does an ideal encyclopedia article on a company look like if not this? - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 22:22, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Coming through the Feedback Request Service - article looks fine. If you want to add more critical material, go ahead and look for it. Also, thanks for being bold Jarry1250! II | (t - c) 22:44, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem here is not wether the article is biased or not, the problem is that it is untrue. The software is a trojan and illegal in most countries including mine. Wikipedia should not be used to endorse criminal behaviour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.208.139.225 (talk) 15:37, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I looked at this yesterday, and the product that causes problems is actually from search.conduit.com, not conduit.com. The names are very similar, but they do not appear to be related. -- Dianna (talk) 16:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The way DNS works is that the domain search.conduit.com is necessarily owned by the owners of the domain conduit.com. It's a subdomain. This company, owned by Ronen Shilo, is the source for misleading Google Adwords advertisements that have a large DOWNLOAD NOW button that lead you to think you're downloading something else than a toolbar such as pushed by wiseconvert.com. Wouldn't a neutral article indicate such a thing? Garbage like this is becoming the demise of Wikipedia; why do you protect it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.22.8 (talk) 21:32, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

If you have some information with reliable sources that you wish to add to the article, please file an edit request, and someone will review it. I have checked repeatedly and can find nothing online that backs up your claims that their stuff is malware. — Dianna (talk) 00:21, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Search.conduit.com is actually non-malicious hijacker that often bundled with freeware/shareware to install its toolbar and hijacker the browsers by changing the homepage and redirecting [...]
"Avisoft Staff", Anvisoft Forums

http://forums.anvisoft.com/viewtopic-45-956-0.html / edg ☺ ☭ 10:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

NOTE

The page should be rewritten to not be like an ad for spam. Zakawer (talk) 12:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I've said it before and I'll say it again: rewriting is not the problem here. The problem is the material available. If people could only find reliably-sourced criticism, we can add it. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 14:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

If you could point out any specific sections that have an advertorial tone, I would be happy to try and re-write them. --Dianna (talk) 15:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Is this material usable as criticism? http://malwaretips.com/blogs/remove-conduit-search-virus/ Dpatuwo (talk) 20:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

No; it is a blog. Blogs are self-published sources and are thus not considered to be reliable sources.-- Diannaa (talk) 00:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I think this page should be changed a little and not deleted. So they could put something about it spreading without permission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.203.78.1 (talk) 12:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

How can there not be a "criticism" subsection in an entry on a company like this?

This is rediculous. Obviously, this company is investing A LOT in keeping its reputation and hiding the fact that what they do is actually malware. I agree that this is open for discussion, but there must at least be some kind of reference to the fact that in MANY places/review Conduit is presented as malware. Just google "conduit". Rediculous! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.77.108 (talk) 13:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

As has been said many times before, if there is legitimate criticism in the form of an actual news article then add it. Otherwise there are no sources to support the criticisms, even if valid. Jeremy112233 (talk) 13:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Browser Hijack

I added this sentence, which was then reverted. Is there a problem with these sources? We have this toolbar listed on the browser hijacking page.

The toolbars have been described as a browser hijack and are difficult to remove.

--Terrible Tim (talk) 23:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I think these are both adequate sources for this statement. It is unfortunate that there is so much trepidation about identifying these clearly unwanted nuisances. / edg ☺ ☭ 11:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay I'm reverting this. The "forum" is absolutely not an RS. First Arkansas News is not a valid news source by any stretch of the imagination. It is a blog with no independent editorial board--a must for news sources. In addition you've proven no COI here and given no explanation for why an article worked on by dozens of editors reads like a news release. We've had a lot of problems here with people trying to turn the Conduit page into an attack page on the company, and all editors on this talk page have been open to the page having some "Conduit is a hijacker" content if it can be sourced. But at this point it still cannot, as no legitimate news agency has reported such information.Jeremy112233 (talk) 13:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

What you're calling a "forum" (your quotes) and "absolutely not an RS" is written by the staff of an anti-malware product that seems to have been recommended by PCMag and C|Net. And while First Arkansas News seems to have modest credentials, it does in fact seem to be a news site. I don't believe your objection under WP:RS is valid. And I do not believe you are an impartial editor. / edg ☺ ☭ 13:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't make them non-impartial :) For the forum, see here, and as for First Arkansas News, I'm not sure a list of freelance writers counts as an editorial board. Given that, are you still certain that First Arkansas News is a valid source? I don't really see it as more than a blog, and under the weblogs category the publication would not qualify as an RS. See here. Jeremy112233 (talk) 16:14, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Your attempt to ding the Anvisoft link as a "forum" is the reason WP:IAR exists. That link is not (per your WP:RSEX links) "anonymous commentary", it's Anvisoft staff (conspicuously labeled as such). Are you proposing that they cannot be used on Wikipedia because of the software on which they publish their information?

• "How to Remove Conduit Search Toolbar and search.conduit.com redirect?". Anvisoft. 2013-06-07. Retrieved 2013-08-13.

As for the First Arkansas News it's clearly a small news site, published on a blog. While the lack of an editorial board makes certainly this is a sub-optimal source, this is also not anonymous commentary. If you can find a better link documenting that Conduit is a tool for creating toolbars that deceptively install a browser hijacker and are by design difficult to remove, please contribute.

• "So long, uTorrent". First Arkansas News. 2010-12-15. Retrieved 2013-04-30.

However, I fear the best I'll get will be a tag-team response from a certain other editor. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, a forum is never a valid RS, as it has no internal editorial system to screen and verify the content of its postings/articles. The idea that there are no "optimal" sources for the toolbar's removal difficulties likely means that this item is not a notable fact about the company. There are all sorts of things we could say about any number of subjects if we were looser on the definition of RS, but the whole point of RS is to keep things that are only published on the fringe of legitimate publishing out in favor of truly verifiable items. As some background on this particular issue, the last time somebody tried to force these through, I can say that I spent a great deal of time hunting for a legitimate source to support their idea and could find none. I'll try again here in a moment; but if there are no RS, why is it important to add? Jeremy112233 (talk) 16:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Jeremy. It is important to me to describe the nature of these toolbars, since I have had the unpleasant task of helping people remove them from their computers. A simple Google search [1] shows every single result about your toolbar is about people trying to remove it. It is clear that a lot of people feel the way I do about the toolbar [2]. I will see if I can find some better RS for this page, though most of what is written about the company on the web seems to be press releases, sponsored articles, and (involuntary) user complaints. Terrible Tim (talk) 20:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The Conduit toolbar is identified as a Potentially Unwanted Program by Malwarebytes.

Any objections to me adding this fact to the article? Terrible Tim (talk) 14:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm hesitant with these because the sources are blogs or forums and not at the same level as First Arksansas News, which I think should be rejected as a source given my above arguments. So the thing is, they can't be used as a source of information about Conduit, as there is no way to verify that the information was written in a neutral, well-sourced manner. I can also go online and find similar links such as this or this, which have an actual author and are not written with the primary intention of redirecting the reader to a "removal tool" the forums you've posted are. They clearly state that Conduit is not malware. That means in order to use forums of this sort, even if they could be used, it would require you to cherry-pick the forums that support you and ignore the ones that don't. I think we're looking at the wrong issue here. The real issue is that Conduit is a toolbar that some users dislike, but this is not unlike any other product in the world. What takes this dislike from non-notable consumer grumbling to a notable part of a company's reputation is the publishing of an independent, third-party item stating that conduit is annoying to some consumers. When new articles published don't have any trace of this sentiment, such as this this or this CNet article or this one, then the case for the inclusion of the sentiment present in the forums becomes all the more difficult to make. Especially with publishers like CNet, which is a legitimate form of sites you've suggested, and CNet chooses not to describe Conduit in that manner. Jeremy112233 (talk) 16:33, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

So, if you have a problem with the Arkansas News source do you intend to remove it from the browser hijacking page? Terrible Tim (talk) 18:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I've seen it there. I generally choose not to Wiki-stalk issues across pages unless necessary. If you would prefer some consistency between the pages on principal I wouldn't be opposed to making that effect and discussing the removal of it there as well. Lemme know. Jeremy112233 (talk) 19:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

For sourcing "difficult to remove", how about this one:

• 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

/ edg ☺ ☭ 21:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Good source for saying that once it's on it's tough to get off, just not for calling it malware. Nice find. Jeremy112233 (talk) 21:36, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest you add that to the article edg. I'd still like to see us decide on an acceptable source to document the search settings hijack that Windows users have been experiencing from 2011 up to the present. Terrible Tim (talk) 22:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

That seems like a very slanted view to me. If you don't have the sources, why are you pushing the content so virulently? Pushing non-referenced negative content is as antithetical to Wikipedia's spirit as pushing promotional content.Jeremy112233 (talk) 22:54, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Terrible Tim posted an informal RFC at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Computer_Security#Conduit_and_Browser_hijacking and I'm here to say WP:QUACK. The only problem with some of these sources are that they're WP:PRIMARY. But primary sources are not forbidden and two are full-fledged WP:RS's. The information should be included. The best damage control that can be done for Conduit at this point is to find some other independent sources that purport that the toolbars are not hijacks and also include that POV in the article. ~KvnG 15:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Again, no good sources on the subject for calling it malware, but if you actually read the above conversation a good source has already been found to discuss the difficulties users have with getting rid of Conduit if they find it bothersome :) No one argued against that actual RS. Jeremy112233 (talk) 16:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

No one has objected to the CNet link, and yet upon approving it yourself, you have not added it to this article. Let's get on with it.

The problem with the Conduit tool is plainly evident from primary sources, and these sources are sufficient for now. If you can find secondary sources from news organizations, as you feel is important, please contribute. Otherwise you are just WP:Wikilawyering. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Lack of consensus

Let me remind everybody that there was no consensus to add non-RS forums as citations, and thus they are not appropriate for this article. There was one article we agreed could be used, citing Conduit as "difficult to remove", but there still are absolutely no good sources for using the term browser hijacker. So let's not get ahead of ourselves here, and move forward more cautiously here. Jeremy112233 (talk) 14:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, there is a consensus. You are just opposed to it.[3] And I notice Dianaa has re-joined, as I expected above.[4] It looks like a new reputation-management offensive has begun. / edg ☺ ☭ 14:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

(ec) I accidentally re-added the content in an edit conflict. So I went back and added the caveat that people making these assertions in online forums. See how it reads now. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:53, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the current version buries the lead in favor of press release level information suggesting corporate endorsements. I'd settle for it in spite of that if I thought you were editing in good faith. (Comments like this one rule out good faith editing.) I'm seeing what appears to be a new reputation management effort, in which you appear to be playing good cop bad cop, with User:Jeremy112233 threatening outright deletion. I do not appreciating being offered that as a choice, and I don't believe this will lead to a good article. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:35, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I am a Wikipedia administrator with over 79,000 edits to nearly 43,000 different articles. I started following this article when it was among a group of articles under attack by editors and sockpuppets that were attacking articles on NYC rabbis and people affiliated with them. (Here is the article in the NY Times; scroll all the way to the bottom to see the Wikipedia connection). I still watch-list the rabbi articles and this one and the one on the founder of this company and several other articles that were under attack. I am not affiliated with this company or the rabbis or with any of the material I edit on this wiki. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm okay with the edit. I'm not sure why we are including non-RS forums here other than the fact that one editor keeps claiming they are RS, but adding them in this way at least highlights the quality of the source. Jeremy112233 (talk) 16:03, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 September 2013

To protect people, the overview should include how Conduit created a malware program that is 1) difficult to remove and 2) is installed covertly.

http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows_8-security/virus-toolbar-named-search-conduit-attached-to/592cefab-3ced-48ed-adda-a9822d49aa58

I wasn't able to find an official source for this. Google "remove conduit malware" and see what you find. The program is very similar to the "Ask Toolbar".

Thank you,

50.100.177.253 (talk) 22:08, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.. You need to provide a source which links the malware to this subject. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 17:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 September 2013

69.157.7.93 (talk) 23:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Please post a question or a suggested edit. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Lack of criticism

Any simple search will show numerous reports of controversial incidents with this company's software being subtly installed on people's computers, with permission boxes auto-checked, with it re-installing itself without permission, being hard to remove, etc.

See for example Matthias Gruber's article. Wouldn't make an ideal reference, but the internet is full of this.

I would like to see if we could have a section on criticism of this company and its products, if we can supply some appropriate references for that. Ranze (talk) 16:43, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

This has been a perennial source of discussion on the talk page of this article, but we have yet to find any sources that are not internet forums or blogs. Matthias Gruber's website is a blog, and as such is not usable as it does not meet WP:RS -- Diannaa (talk) 17:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I am removing your addition to the article, as the content is already included in the "Browser" section. The section header has been removed as well, as per Wikipedia:Criticism, we should avoid having "a separate section in an article devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints. Instead, articles should present positive and negative viewpoints from reliable sources together, fairly, proportionately, and without bias." -- Diannaa (talk) 17:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

A criticism section would be value in that it tends to be lost (easily overlooked) amidst the positive viewpoints. I can't help but think that the sources which reviewed this company may have been biased. Odds are that such sources might be lax in their criticism to avoid accusations of libel and stuff. Forums often more freely express the truth of problems that computer users are having with the company's products. I mean heck, the whole reason I looked this company up was because all of a sudden my firewall was warning me that a product from this company I never heard of, hidden inside my temporary internet files, was trying to send browsing data. A reliable source of criticism hopefully exists out there which we can cite. I've seen this stuff called spyware in addition to hijacking too. Sadly with the amount of money this company has, I fear a lot of potential sources would be unwilling to stick their necks out to apply criticism. Ranze (talk) 18:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

It may, however, also be that the blogs and forums attacking Conduit are the biased or uninformed ones, which is why the legitimate press has never picked up on these specific user concerns, and not that the world press is corrupted or fearful :) Jeremy112233 (talk) 20:04, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

The opening sentence of this article cites two unreliable sources: a website called All Things Digital, and a blog post on a website called Website Magazine. Neither website has any reputation for reliability. Please find a reliable source that accurately and clearly explains what it is that Conduit markets.

A lot of useful information can be found here: http://web.utsandiego.com/news/2013/oct/26/tp-uninstalling-toolbars-free-trials/

Here is another good description: http://www.mydigitalfc.com/knowledge/browser-hijack-no-joyride-049 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.226.105 (talk • contribs) 11:31, 14 November 2013‎ (UTC)

Partly done: These sources are about the issue of browser hijacking. They aren't suitable for the opening sentence of the lead, but I have added them as sources where the issue is discussed in the article, and have slightly expanded that to mention news outlets in addition to online forums. I've also copied that sentence to the end of the lead section. --Stfg (talk) 14:36, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

P.S. When you add new sections to talk pages, please add them at the end. The New section link at the top of any talk page will get your section to the right place. And please sign all your talk page posts by typing ~~~~ at the end of them. --Stfg (talk) 14:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Jeremy112233 has removed some of the addition to the lead with the edit summary "Wildly inappropriate to add conjecture found only in online forums and not reliable sources to the lead of an article. Not a single news article has ever called Conduit a highjacker; however their toolbars have been called difficult to remove by the news." That is incorrect. U-T San Diego (FN34) and Financial Chronicle (FN35) are news articles, not online forums. Although both pages have comments boxes, it is the articles themselves that describe Conduit as a hijack. The comment "wildy inappropriate" seems undue, to my mind. Will Jeremy112233 self-revert, please? --Stfg (talk) 16:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

That's not the point. The point is that you've promoted a single sentence - a minor point in the article - to the lead of the article, which goes against the function of an article lead. We don't put this kind of content into the lead unless it is a major significant part of the article, which in this case hijacking is not. Because there is not widespread coverage of its existence, only some passing mentions. Adding the sources is fine, but adding it to the lead is not appropriate. And goes against a great deal of discussions had here previously on this talk page. Jeremy112233 (talk) 16:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't accept the claim that it's a minor point in the article. Both this talk page and the article history evidence a hard struggle to get any mention of it included in the article at all. You have been the chief resister of any mention, at least recently. Your main argument -- that the sources are non-RS because they are forums -- was valid while only non-RS sources were supplied. Now we have two RS news sources, but you failing to acknowledge that, still falsely stating in that edit summary: "Not a single news article has ever called Conduit a highjacker". The discovery of RSs changes the game, obviously. A lede is supposed to summarise key points of an article, not to be a bland introduction. The malware assessment, reported in RS news sources, is a salient aspect of all this -- much more salient than 260 thousand registered publishers yada yada. The article other than than one sentence reads like a brochure, as has been observed here before. --Stfg (talk) 17:02, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

A single sentence in the article is never a key point. If you believe that it is a key point, see if there is enough material in any of the RS to expand upon the point. If you can, then perhaps it will be a key point. But as of now, a single sentence is all that has been possible, which means mention in the lead is clearly inappropriate if contentious. Expand the point in the page, or it will remain a minor insignificant aspect of the page. Jeremy112233 (talk) 18:01, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Also, if you feel the article is advertorial, feel free to change it. Jeremy112233 (talk) 18:03, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Now that some reliable sources have been located, I think this information belongs in the lead. Stfg's wording is pretty good; I think we should include it. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:45, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Ugh fine, I'm not one to stand in the way of consensus. Still disagree about highlighting one negative sentence in the lead (literally just a replication of that sentence in the lead, making no contribution to the page whatsoever, which is why we shouldn't summarize single sentence content in the lead) but throw it in there, I'm not invested in this enough to spend time arguing against the change. Jeremy112233 (talk) 01:57, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

On the bright side, this may reduce the out-of-proportion maintenance load of watch-listing this page. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

That is very true :) Jeremy112233 (talk) 03:23, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Surely PR flacks are keeping criticism out of this article?

There are literally dozens of articles online which could be used as sources for criticism, easily found by searching (for instance) "conduit malware". Many instruct users how to get rid of the hijacking software distributed by this company. The notion that all these articles are blogposts is false, and the alacrity with which certain editors (to wit: user Dianna and user Jarry1250) revert changes and defend this company lead me to believe these editors are paid flacks. Please, if you are not being paid to maintain this company's reputation, say so directly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.58.143.86 (talk) 01:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I am a Wikipedia administrator with over 80,000 edits to 43,000 different articles and files on this website. I started following this article when it was among a group of articles under attack by editors and sockpuppets that were attacking articles on NYC rabbis and people affiliated with them. (Here is the article in the NY Times; scroll all the way to the bottom to see the Wikipedia connection). I still watch-list the rabbi articles and this one and the one on the founder of this company and several other articles that were under attack. I am not affiliated with this company or the rabbis or with any of the material I edit on this wiki. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Great. Maybe you can unlock this article for editing, rather than systematically reverting each attempt at criticism. Here's an article by the newspaper Haaretz on this company's scummy business model, chosen almost at random from the many, many critical attacks online: http://www.haaretz.com/business/.premium-1.542896 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.58.143.86 (talk) 10:32, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I am unable to view that article, as it's behind a paywall. The reason we are unable to develop the criticism section of the article is the lack of material in reliable sources; all we've got right now is material from online forums and blogs. -- Diannaa (talk) 11:25, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

An interesting piece, it can be read in full here. The article doesn't make any of the malware claims previous users have requested, and it is discussing a possible merger or split by Conduit in the future, however it does claim that the toolbar industry is somewhat unsavoury. But it doesn't say Conduit itself is a bad company, it is more talking about the industry and lack of growth space for companies within the industry. We could work this in, but if done in a neutral way, it does not at all reveal something "scummy" about the company. Perhaps a discussion here on the talk page about how it could be implemented would be the best solution to those who feel strongly about it. Jeremy112233 (talk) 14:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

We could include some content in the History about the proposed merger with Perion. The source provides information that Shilo realises the company has a negative image, which could be added at the end of the Browser section. Interesting that as people move away from laptops / desktops towards mobile platforms that these toolbars will become passé; but that kind of info, and general statements about the toolbar business being viewed as unsavoury, don't belong in the article about one specific company that offers a toolbar. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:15, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I looked up the WP:NEWSBLOG guidelines and I believe a computer professional writing on a tech site ought to qualify. Certainly if the source is specified. Ars Technica, ZDNet, and so on have articles on Conduit foistware. I still have difficulty believing information about such obviously objectionable software--and to be clear, this company makes browser hijackers, which people download by accident, and find very hard to eradicate--is being suppressed here according to objective editorial principles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.58.143.86 (talk • contribs)

If you could post links to the material you have found, then I would be happy to evaluate them. Thanks, -- Diannaa (talk) 13:24, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

This article is irresponsible. People who do not know about Conduit or why it's on their computer may come here for answers. You tell them it is a legit company and go on about the history but barely mention the fact that it may be malware. I don't believe it's up to you to mislead the world in order to save face for a company. What Conduit is doing is their fault and facts are facts. I didn't come here to slam Conduit. I just notice you only tell half the story. It's practically common knowledge what this company's programs do. As a professional computer repair specialist. I am telling you it is malware. Wikipedia is telling you it is malware. What is the definition of browser hijacking? Conduit. I have never seen Conduit get on a computer by piggybacking on other software with an option to not add it. I've only seen it get on a computer through fake adobe flash updates. I've also seen it get on a computer by visiting web sites that have been compromised. So lets see, we have common knowledge, wikipedia source, simple facts that are not interpretations or opinions. I'm sorry but you still need to cite a good source? Have you ever tried to remove Conduit from a computer? I dare you to try. The uninstaller doesn't remove the whole program nor does it remove the plugins from browsers or reset the homepage. If it gets on without user permission and won't get off without a fight, it's malicious at the very least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.10.173.246 (talk) 17:14, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

DivX 10 asks to install Conduit and the browser hijacker. It even explains that it is a browser hijacker (it says something like "Conduit Search Protect will set your browser to Conduit Search and prevent any other search engines from resetting it"). I read that and said, whaddaya nuts?! I ain't installing any such thing on my computer. Unchecked the box, and it went away. So it does ask, at least sometimes. Not leaving without a fight, that I'll grant. Shalom S. (talk) 17:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Patent Infringement

Perhaps there is justice in the world. Conduit was sued for patent infringement last month. https://setexasrecord.com/news/291900-recent-patent-infringement-cases-filed-in-the-eastern-district-of-texas-66 2601:A:4B00:214:A9B2:26C2:147A:BBE (talk) 22:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

Conduit's adware or malware has systematically been destroying my computer for weeks now. I didn't ask for Conduit, it was bundled in a graphics program I downloaded (and did not disclose the nasty surprise that is Conduit). Conduit has repeatedly highjacked my web browsers, and now it has started to corrupt my computer's registry. Any company that resorts to these tactics to force their product upon people should be put of business, in my opinion. So that's my bias. But don't worry, I'm not going to edit the page. I just wanted to make an observation on the article itself.

When one is attempting to research how to remove Conduit from a computer, this Wikipedia article is one of the top search results. And it is a complete whitewash. When you browse through the history of the page, you see two editors in particular -- Diannaa and Jeremy112233 who methodically remove nearly all criticism of Conduit's software. This strongly suggests that these two editors have some sort of conflict on interest, perhaps either as public relations or paid editors. Perhaps the administrators/editors are devout believers in certain Wikipedia's guidelines, but these rules have so many grey areas and are haphazardly enforced across Wikipedia. There really is no other reasonable explanation for why an administrator or editor would go so far out of their way to keep negative references out of one particular article on a piece of software. Outside of this article, is anyone out there on the internet calling Conduit a valid, good product? No. Its universally decried as adware, malware, or worse. (Google "Conduit" and you'll see.) Except here. And yes, I see the reference to "difficult to remove." That, however, grossly understates the issues with this program.

I'm really not trying to engage in a personal attack. I don't know them. I'm sure they are fine, decent people in the real world. I've seen many editing battles on Wikipedia articles on religion, politics, and cult television shows. You somewhat expect bias battles on those topics. But why would an editor vehemently defend Conduit? I mean, really, . . . Conduit?? What could conceivably be the greater purpose in protecting Conduit from criticism, other than getting paid to do so? Absent some Wikipedia version of financial disclosure forms, there's no real way to definitively prove a conflict on interest unless the editors themselves admit as much. 2601:A:4B00:214:A9B2:26C2:147A:BBE (talk) 21:55, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I am a Wikipedia administrator with over 84,000 edits to over 45,000 different articles and files. I started following this article when it was among a group of articles under attack by editors and sockpuppets that were attacking articles on NYC rabbis and people affiliated with them. (Here is the article in the NY Times; scroll all the way to the bottom to see the Wikipedia connection). I still watch-list the rabbi articles and this one and the one on the founder of this company and several other articles that were under attack. I am not affiliated with this company or the rabbis or with any of the material I edit on this wiki. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Whether you have one edit, 84,000 edits, or 840,000 edits, you can still be a paid editor. Or become one at any time. (If I wanted to hire someone to keep my company's Wikipedia page clean, I'd find a couple of established editors or administrators such as yourself and throw money at them to do it, instead of a PR firm that creates new accounts that would be quickly spotted.) I understand if you are trying to remove something like anti-Semitic diatribes or irrelevant text that relate back to these rabbis, but you are systematically removing virtually all criticism of this product, a product that merits a healthy amount of criticism. If you view all of this criticism as somehow relating to this group of rabbis, let me make a suggestion -- download Conduit to your computer; then try and remove it and see what happens. 2601:A:4B00:214:B835:AD8C:84EF:9DB5 (talk) 16:12, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia has strict requirements regarding sourcing. The lack of content on the software in reliable secondary sources is what's keeping the negative content out of the article. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Untitled

This page was previously vandalized, and has now been restored back to its previous version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PremVis (talk • contribs) 11:54, 14 August 2011‎

conduit.com do not respond in my computer and it freeze it please tell me what to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.119.238.232 (talk) 16:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Conduit SPAM

Conduit is a platform for virus & Spam! --2001:4C50:21D:F400:21A:4DFF:FE55:A75D (talk) 20:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Malware

Conduit is doing a good job of gaming Wikipedia.

Googling "Conduit software" returns page after page of how to remove Conduit.

That says something about the nature of the relationship between the general public and Conduit software. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.118.158 (talk) 00:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

If it's not malware, then would a moderator please install this ?ware and then try uninstalling it. After doing so, please add either a malware section or a section explaining how to remove the software. How do we escalate this as an issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GaTechThomas (talk • contribs) 00:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Instructions for malware removal are not part of our mandate. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

All Your Browser Are Belong To Us

Today for the second time this week I spent time trying to remove the stubborn vestiges of Conduit's software from my PC. While doing so, curiosity pulled me to Wikipedia to see what it had to say about the company. I've learned to always read the Talk page on an article to get "the rest of the story" and found the discussion here entertaining.

And this is an interesting subject. When you search for Conduit's product, you get page after page of the same thing: people asking how to get rid of it. You might see this Wikipedia article and you might see something from the company web site; other than that, though, it's all forums and blogs of people helping people remove the product. What other product can make that claim?

The article does mention that the browser toolbar (not their only product but the one that gets the most hate) has been spun off as part of Perion. (That may call for an update to the lead paragraph.) One could suggest that the toolbar information should be moved to a page on Perion and its CodeFuel line – although some mention of it as part of the history of Conduit makes sense. But because it's Conduit that created it and because it still bears their name, it's this article people will find when they're looking for information.

Diannaa & Jeremy112233, I appreciate your effort to maintain Wikipedia's integrity. I know it can be thankless and that several goals have to be balanced. I hope you understand the frustration people feel when they've found this software on their computer. It is ridiculously hard to remove, and the manner in which it gets installed in the first place and the changes it makes without user consent leaves one feeling duped or violated.

You've allowed the compromise statement about the toolbars being described in some forums and news outlets as a browser hijack. By the Wikipedia article on browser hijacking, the toolbar absolutely *is* one. It's the nature of how it works and it's how they monetize their customers' apps and pages. There's probably not a CNN story on it, but it's simply how it's designed. Making it hard to change browser preferences back to what they were (including the homepage) is a selling point. They will say it's to prevent other apps from changing it.

One distinction people should understand is that not everything the toolbars do is directly attributable to Conduit (or now Perion). What they provide is a platform for creating toolbars. That platform includes the ability to install a toolbar with no notification to the user, the ability exercise some level of control over all major browsers, to automatically update the toolbar's code and to make the toolbar nigh impossible to remove. How that platform is used is often (usually? always?) the work of someone else entirely. (What could possibly go wrong?) Gdvanc (talk) 08:38, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

The problem is – and always has been – that the only sources that call the toolbar a browser highjack are forums and blogs. We can't add content that we can't source. Your description of how the toolbar allows other software to be installed without the owner's knowledge is interesting, and might make a good addition if any sources can be found. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:23, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out we have several non-blog, non-forum sources already on this page discussing the malware nature of Conduit's browser hijacking toolbar. I'd like to thank Diannaa and the other editors for helping us get those links on this page in ways would could agree on. Gdvanc if you think you can make the intro more clear, within article guidelines, I'd advise you Be Bold and do that. --Terrible Tim (talk) 17:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

EPSON drivers, silent, no-opt out install.

Umm, okay. I don't care how many "PR" people this crap company has. My personal experience has been this. I buy a printer. I always check for options not to install bundled crap. I am an IT professional, I know what I'm doing. I scan with MALWARE BYTES and it shows up as an unwanted program.

I do not care if it's in the fine print. I'm going to click ok to use my printer I just purchased. There was no EULA "must install unwanted conduit hijack to use".

There needs to be a criticism section, period.

Perhaps the PR folks from conduit posing as users could have a leg to stand on if the installer worked. But it doesn't. You know it doesn't. You know it leaves changes to new tab window settings in browsers intentionally. So stop. It shouldn't take me as long as it does to clean a PC with conduit. It's garbage.

"Malware, short for malicious software, is any software used to disrupt computer operation, gather sensitive information, or gain access to private computer systems.[1] It can appear in the form of executable code, scripts, active content, and other software.[2] 'Malware' is a general term used to refer to a variety of forms of hostile or intrusive software."

disrupt computer operation - check. hostile - check.

Let's at least add a section that it's controversial at the very least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.74.239.106 (talk) 00:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

Conduit (publisher network and platform) → Conduit Inc. – Per WP:NCCORP and [5]. The current name seems a bit aspirational. Any thoughts/suggestions/objections? --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 18:07, 12 October 2014 (UTC) Terrible Tim (talk) 20:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• Currently the article is about the product, but you are proposing to have it about the company that made the product. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:48, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

  Yes, I think the lede should be improved to be about the company, mentioning that they are mostly notable for their browser toolbars, and then describe the nature of their toolbars. Edits to this article have been controversial in the past, which is why I am initiating this discussion. -Terrible Tim (talk) 14:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

  I'd suggest withdrawing this request for the time being, per Graeme Bartlett--WP:RM isn't usually a venue for negotiating article content, so it would be better to open up this issue again if and when it's been determined that the topic of the article should be, in fact, the company. Dekimasuよ! 18:07, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

  Closing this as no consensus to move per the above; creating new redirect from Conduit Inc.. Please propose this again if necessary. Dekimasuよ! 00:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Request for Major Revision to Reflect Sale of Most of the Business

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 (publisher network and platform) this article is named for does not exist anymore. The toolbar business is now part of a different, publicly traded company called Perion, which has merged it with its own products. Conduit Inc. is a company, with other products, and this should be the focus of the article. Information about the current business activities of Conduit Inc. should be made more prominent and information about the defunct toolbar business should be moved to the History section. Previously offered services can be integrated and discussed 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 and no longer even exists as a Conduit product).

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 improperly include large chunks of text, in addition to the source, which is an improper work-around to include extraneous information in the article.

Finally, as the Conduit publishing platform no longer exists, this article should be renamed "Conduit, Inc." instead of just being a redirect from that article title.

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 Wikipedia contributor and strive to abide strictly by WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR and all other Wikipedia 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.BC1278 (talk) 03:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)BC1278

It sounds as if there should be a completely different article on Conduit, Inc., so your sandbox could be a start for that. Since the current article is about the software, it should be renamed to whatever it is called now and with a redirect. The software can be independently notable apart from the company. The software article can be updated to whatever the current situation is. I will take a look at the sandbox draft, and see if it is suitable for a company article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:12, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Graeme Bartlett. That sounds like a good solution. I have no idea of the name or state of the current software -- I haven't tried to research what Perion did with it. The existing article could refer to the "Perion platform" and then someone would need to parse through what should be in the present tense as the Perion platform and what should be in the past tense as Conduit platformBC1278 (talk) 23:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)BC1278

Graeme Bartlett I'd add that even if a new article is created for Conduit, Inc. and this article is renamed for Perion Networks (publisher network and platform), it's worth taking a careful look at this article, too. I spent a lot of time looking at it and we might as well take care of its issues, at the same time if an admin has time. My reading of the Talk suggestion for the last few years suggests to me that two admin tried to keep this article becoming an attack piece, plagued by WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR problems. But the attacks kept coming and have found there way back into the article. Many online forums, opinion pieces, instruction manuals, cited as sources for attacks characterizing the software as malware; whereas almost all the highly reliable sources, including many in the tech space (e.g. Wall Street Journal, TechCrunch, PandoDaily, Fast Company, Bloomberg etc.) characterize it as mainstream software used by hundreds of well known brands. There are also couple of reliable sources in there with criticisms of the platform and in my draft, I note those too and do not suggest removing them or their critiques. But the extremity of the attack in the lead is way out of proportion to the balance of the reliable sources. Cherry picking a handful of highly unreliable sources, and loads of original research, to justify a NPOV violation is what those admins tried to prevent for years. My Talk note, above explains the issues with sources individually.BC1278 (talk) 18:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)BC1278

I have made some modifications to this page to remove the company emphasis. However it cannot be renamed until the product starts to be called by a different name. We will actually need reliable sources to prove the use of the new name. If the product has been discontinued then it may be stuck with the name it was known as in the past. If you don't know anything about the toolbar(s) then we need to find others that do know before it gets a proper rename. The toolbar certainly was a prominent part of the company history so the name may endure. Whether it is called malware or a hijacker depends on the sources. But if only a tiny number use that term then it will be undue to emphasize it here, but it certainly can be mentioned. If the company has soiled its reputation by being associated with a disliked product, then it can change its name. I have seen this happen for other companies that got some bad press, and they changed names. Conduit did seem an excellent name for something that was a conduit for ads, but I suppose it is also a good name for other applications too.

Conduit is part of Download Valley

There should be a link to the more general Download Valley page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.217.2.172 (talk) 16:52, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok Y -- We see: Download Valley#Companies linked to the term. Download Valley is a cluster of software companies in Israel, producing and delivering adware to be installed alongside downloads of other software.[1] --PLA y Grande Covián (talk) 00:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)