Talk:WOT Services/Archive 1

Archive 1

Points not covered

Some spam sites and illegal sites do end up with postive manipulated ratings. Racists and hate mongers have posted many hateful comments; these are allowed. I have used WOT and it is generally useful, but the reliability of the rating varies a lot. Some of the points discussed here should be added to the article.

-User:Anonymous newbie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.77.196.190 (talk) 01:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I do agree with this comment and my own experience proves that wot not only gives positive ratings on dubious sites not excluding illegal ones but do not correct or restrict hate mongers posting comments and giving ratings that are misleading. The company considers its system of rating always corrent no matter if it is clear that the rating is false and incorrect and refuse the basic right of having the site removed from their faulty and very often highly biased (ratings supplied by competitors or parties interested in e g blackmail of the siteowner) rating algorithm. This type of add-ons is more harmful than useful, sorry to say so. I have my own very own experience. --Capekm (talk) 11:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• Yes and no. Spam sites: It is difficult for them to get a good rating. As soon as they get blacklisted, they cannot easily be rated good. Small, "just" illegal sites like e.g. warez sites are usually rated by their "customers". If they deliver their stuff, they are rated good. So, yes, problem there. -- Comments are a huge problem. They can be spammed with ease. Also, comments are only removed, when they are clearly inappropriate. In doubt, they are kept. The problem is, where does hateful/racist begin? And with millions of comments, who checks all of them. (In various languages). Rating Reliability: WoT staff has announced a new scorecard soon, I hope the issues with it are addressed there... Crabel (talk) 23:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

If the spam site has been noticed by the regular posters it can be downgraded easily. If it has not been noticed then it may only rated by its owners. The reliability of ratings is variable. There are many comments that are really foul; on Wikipedia such material is quickly removed. WOT does not seem to monitor these. As a service WOT is not as flawless as the article suggests. I still use WOT, but understand what it is and what it is not. This Wikipedia article is very promotional.

User:Anonymous newbie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.78.130.206 (talk) 07:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC) WOT Services seems to be a machine for spewing out automated libels. truthordare (talk) 15:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

another NPOV question

It appears to be a social engineering tool for mainstreaming, mixing relatively trustworthy sources of danger like malware reports with quite untrustworthy ones, like various people's opinions of the quality of information on various other peoples' websites. All the various reasons why someone might not like a particular site are lumped together into a single rating, making it difficult for someone to disagree with any of the data used in the ranking. Seems like a stupid idea, no matter how well it's done.

But I don't know if any one but me agrees, cares, or thinks it has anything to do with the article/advertisement. Not to say it might not be successful - it's a lot like what made AOL the empire it was, or what makes Hollywood's recent output so brilliant.

Basically I'm suggesting that the fundamental premise it's based on - that the middle of the bell curve is true, accurate, trustworthy, and reliable - is demonstrably incorrect in too many cases to trust ones browser to it, let alone things like the sources of data for one's political opinions...

And yeah, there's a place to disagree with their ratings, but you have to go off into the fenced-off protest area to do it. If I wanted to use a system like this, I'd want to have A. a bunch of different groups whose opinion I could decide between, based on their sense of what's trustworthy and what's not, and B. a LOT of information on who makes up each group - probably more than they'd want to give. And the "everyone" group is probably not one I'd use a lot. Sometimes I'd turn on the "russian hackers and freelance programmers trust..." option, and others I'd use the "the American intelligence community trusts..." option. If I wanted to keep up on the news, I might also browse "Tea Partiers trust..." and "Earth First! trusts...", but no one in their right mind expects anyone to give the public access to THAT sort of demographic information, especially for free. 24.17.178.36 (talk) 15:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. I use WOT as an Addon, but find most users cite Alexa when reviewing sites, which is often incorrect. I've seen many sites that are fine, yet they get a bad rating, or vice-versa (Some dirtbag wrote of Wikipedia "Admins are douches." Other users cite Wiki as bad because of "adult content" Of course you'll find sex/nudity. It's an encyclopedia!) Their so-called "strong system" is completely useless, but I use it anyway since you can't be too safe. This article really needs some rewriting done to it. --MithrandirAgain (talk) 05:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, there are a lot of problems with WoT. I am a frequent user and voter for a couple of months now. Those people who vote based on e.g. Alexa are annoying. You are right, some users write and vote crap. But you, here at Wikipedia, should understand the problems. Here, too, the power of the crowd creates content. Basically everybody can "edit" and add his voice. Some voices are better, some are worse. If you look at the scorecard of wikipedia, you can find the negative ratings somewhere of page 66 on the scorecard. I hope it is allowed, here is the link to the scorecard: http://www.mywot.com/de/scorecard/en.wiki.x.io Wikipedia has the advantage, that it is bigger and older, content is more reliable. If you don't like a voting, work to change it. As do I. Crabel (talk) 20:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I feel as if this article has been composed and/or edited by myWOT pr staff or kool aid drinking members of their community. The best illustration of the myWOT process is when site owners request a review on their forum. Any web developer who views the threads ratings request threads would have some concerns. The most obvious one for me is the technical illiteracy of the people rating, especially some of super users. As a direct example, is it appropriate to cite that gw7 is a retired sheet metal worker? The concerns that are raised about websites on that forum frequently include the use of cookies. If these users have such a concern about cookies they could simply disable them. More often than not, it seems as if these individuals are acting as petty tyrants. It makes no difference that the user could disable cookies, in my opinion it is about acting from a position of power. This fits into the obstinate and sometimes snarky nature of the review process. Businesses find themselves at the mercy of anonymous and sometimes immature Internet users and their inane requests.

There are also several examples where a site has been down voted for some personal or political bias. You do not have to be a technical person to understand that. For anyone involved in the affiliate marketing space, especially those promoting different techniques or tutorials, there is the often stated bias of "all affiliate marketing is a scam". This can be taken to include advertisements on the site, or cookies dropped by a 3rd party as a result of ads served. One user stated on their site review forum: "I think it is pretty well established now that all cookies from XYZ.com are a form of adware". Holistic medicine practitioners have also been subject to biases as well as others who do not hold mainstream views.

There is just so much material on their forum that exposes how biases and malicious some of the users can be. But how transparent is myWOT? We have no way of knowing about what happened on the deleted site review forum threads. What was said in the abusive comments posted by malicious reviewers? Where is the transparency in deleting those threads that might show the myWOT community in a negative light?

NPOV question

The current article is quite OK, if a little too positive... e.g. what are the privacy concerns (a ref would help), any downsides etc. I notice that the firefox extension is 1MB which seems rather large. Is it open source? - we are talking security here! Are the communal ratings available for communal use etc? Anyhow, I just wanted to get on the record if the creator/main contributor User:Debsalmi is from WOT? (see WP:COI) Widefox (talk) 09:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The addons are open source. You can find more answers here: http://www.mywot.com/wiki/FAQ#Malicious_rumors

I don't understand the question: "Are the communal ratings available for communal use etc?" Crabel (talk) 22:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

NPOV answers

The current article is quite OK, if a little too positive... e.g. what are the privacy concerns (a ref would help), any downsides etc.
I think these are pretty much covered in this WOT blog entries: [1]

I notice that the firefox extension is 1MB which seems rather large.
It is rather large, but that's because it contains lots of graphics and has been localized to 10 languages.

Is it open source? - we are talking security here!
The Firefox add-on hasn't been released under an open source license, but it doesn't have any binary components, so anyone can read the source code. Of course, it's against our license agreement if they do...

This strikes me as at least misleading. The license grants the "right to install and use only the executable version (no source code)" so I'm not sure how anybody has the right to use the plugin at all if there is no binary. In any case, that is irrelevant, isn't it? The main parts of the application are presumably in wot.jar and, since the EULA includes the clause "You agree not to disclose, modify, decompile, translate, disassemble, reverse engineer or otherwise attempt to derive source code...", I'm assuming it would violate the license to unpack the jar in order to read it. Besides which, code which cannot be examined, scrutinised and criticised is code which cannot be examined, scrutinised and criticised. Whether that is because the code is unavailable or because the author denies users the legal right to read it is completely irrelevant. The security issues are the same - possibly even slightly worse in the case of a merely legal impediment since such an obstacle will presumably not prevent those whose purposes are less than admirable from making the most of its readability. Dienw (talk) 01:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Are the communal ratings available for communal use etc?
We have a public API for anyone interested in using the ratings and have been known to share data if someone wants to use it.

User:Debsalmi is from WOT and main contributor of this article. I hope that clarifies things. Is it possible to remove that notice? Thanks, Debsalmi (talk) 06:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for going on-the-record Debsalmi. Hope this helps - I marked the specific factual claims that need references. The current article does read like an advert - see Wikipedia:NOT#SOAPBOX for details. When these article issues are resolved, the notices can be removed.

2 technical questions now: 1. The site ratings are stored on your server, so details of every site you browse get sent to your server? 2. how much extra bandwidth and slow down is caused by the extension?

Can you put in the licence details for code, data , API ? Widefox (talk) 09:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I waited, now I've added that it's proprietary. The fact that the source code is readable is confusing, so I didn't go there. Widefox (talk) 10:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

References and POV

References have been added to support the material. A section called Criticisms was added. Can you please let me know if this is OK? Should I include the more technical stuff (answers to questions you asked) in the article somewhere?

Answers to your questions (from our tech guy Sami, sami@mywot.com):
1. The site ratings are stored on your server, so details of every site you browse get sent to your server?

The add-on only sends the hostname for each visited site to our servers and even this information is encrypted in transit and our logs. The add-on also caches all received ratings, so they won't be requested again when you visit another page on the site or return there a moment later. As our privacy policy explains, we don't track our users.

I hesitate to comment on this because I do not really know what I'm talking about but I'm somewhat concerned so maybe somebody could look more closely at this. Whatever the plugin itself may or may not do by way of "phoning home", it is clearly intended as part of a system which includes participation in the online community at mywot.com. This site relies heavily on javascript including a great deal which is aimed at tracking usage - not just the usual Google analytics but also a system called Snoobi. For example the page at http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/mywot.com (the scorecard for mywot.com itself) calls the script http://eu1.snoobi.com/snoop.php?tili=mywot_com. The Snoobi software is designed to track usage, enable targeted marketing etc. It enables sites to track usage by organisation, for example, in order to target marketing at organisations which might be interested in purchasing products. I did not go into it in much depth, but it clearly offers quite sophisticated tools for tracking and analysing usage. Of course, I don't know what the scripts mywot is using do - but the name of the script "snoop" seems suggestive.

The encryption in transit/logs seems irrelevant to privacy concerns since mywot can presumably decrypt it or there would be no point in the transmission. Moreover, mywot must track the browsing of individuals in some way in order to avoid manipulation of the ratings system by the unscrupulous. As I understand it, which is not very well, it assigns some sort of identifier for this purpose.

So mywot appears to be quite interested in tracking users both as individuals and as members of the various groups Snoobi allows to be tracked. At least, so it seems to me after a cursory and not terribly knowledgeable inspection. I would be very glad to be wrong. Dienw (talk) 01:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

2. how much extra bandwidth and slow down is caused by the extension?
It uses almost no bandwidth, less than a kilobyte per request. All requests are made asynchronously, so if you are using even remotely modern computer, it won't slow down the browsing at all.

License details
For the add-ons etc.: [2]

For the API: [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Debsalmi (talk • contribs) 12:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Notability

I think it should be removed because it has no notability, just because it is a firefox add-on does not mean squat. That does not make it notable. Being written up in legit magazines makes it notable. This is just some SiteAdvisor wannabe and their AD should be removed immediately. What is the hold-up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.31.224 (talk) 02:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

This addon does meet the notability guidelines because it is about a widely used Firefox addon and internet startup. I do, however, believe that this article could do with being totally re-written as one of the site owners has made some significant contributions. UKWikiGuy (talk) 10:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Notability is normally demonstrated through the use of independent sources. Are there reviews of the add on in significant publications or something? I've tried Googling but it's not a particularly Google friendly phrase :) Using quotes I get a few foreign language news hits ([4]) which I can't really interpret in terms of whether it's substantial independent coverage or just puff pieces. -- SiobhanHansa 12:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Notable. The refs are almost good enough (I don't think you'll get perfect refs for "little bits" of software like this), but I'm making an exception because it's on the Mozilla recommended list. I have replaced the tag with a refimprove as a compromise. Widefox (talk) 19:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, firstly, don't try to compare this with SiteAdvisor. Which ever one you prefer is a biased opinion, and just because of the fact that you like SiteADvisor better doesn't mean that everyone thinks that way. That has nothing to do with this article. Also, don't assume that a "site owner edited this article'. It seems fine to me, not overly possitive. BUt perhaps a criticisms section could be added if people still feel this way? Stormstream (talk) 00:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

PC Mag Review - Aug 13, 2009

PC Mag's Neil J. Rubenking gives WOT a mixed review[5]. John Harvey (talk) 12:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

references

Of all those references listed right now, only two of them (pcmac.com and pcwelt.de) are valid ones. All the others go to the company itself or blogs or other unsuitable sources. The pcwelt.de article is not in English, and frankly, on the level of the rainbow press. So despite those two appearances in the (online) media, I still am not convinced of notability. I agree, being even a once in a liftime "recommended firefox addon" doesn't mean squat. The same is true about whatever software-download sites like softpedia or cnet.com are saying. Mentioning this more shows the inadequacy of the acticle than the notability of its subject Iridos (talk) 17:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• I've added one from the published (as in dead trees) proceedings of an academic conference; if you're being cited in the academy, I'd say you're Notable. --Geoff Capp (talk) 04:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of WOT - source for improving the article

If somebody wants to add a "criticism" section (enlarging "manipulation" is not enough, as this is by far not the only issue with WOT!), then please look up on the commentary page for WOT's Add-On on the pages of the Mozilla project.

The guys who groom this article will most probably argue that that page may not be a reputable enough source, but at least you'll get a plethora of starting points: like ...

• WOT selling their "seal of trust" (ha!) for hard money
• WOT being used for political mobbing and discrimination of certain websites
• WOT's system inviting biassed ratings (by its "ethics" evaluation category)
• WOT actually being spyware (tracking the user's page access and sending it to their servers)
• WOT being highly unreliable for security purposes,

etc. etc.

It's all there, elaborated by angry users. Read it and use it! During the last weeks, their rating dropped from 5 to 4 stars. I also observe that most of their positive ratings only go with enthusiastic one- or two-liners ... I suspected that there may be some pushing behind it, but maybe I'm just paranoid ;)

Anyway: I guess that as soon as an effective criticism section is added and pushed through the ensuing edit war, "Internet Security" (the WOT company) or the folk that are maybe connected with them will stop grooming this article, and instead demand deletion for non-notability themselves - just wait and see ... -- 91.89.49.22 (talk) 17:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources lists what constitutes acceptable sources on which Wikipedia articles. In particular, it singles out forum posts as being unacceptable. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 17:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem at all - I anticipated this reply. But it's good enough as a starting point for building a text, so the suggestion stands. -- 91.89.49.22 (talk) 20:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

If these criticisms were picked up by a reliable tech-news source (news.com, arstechnica, even boingboing) then we could report that. The recent case of the Blizzard-forums real-name issue is a good example - Wikipedia can't rely on the manic ravings of Blizzard's forums (which, like many such things, are 99% rubbish) but now that it's been picked up by tech-news websites, and the technology pages of major publications, then we can happily report that. So forums aren't a shadow universe that can never be seen from Wikipedia, but in this regard Wikipedia relies on reporting the aggregate opinion of journalists, scholars, academics, and other (somewhat) notables. The alternative is really Wikipedians doing a synthesis, wherein the reader gets neither the forum posts nor the reliable source, but the Wikipedian's own opinion, which is if anything worse than the forum. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 21:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Task list for cleanup

A quick skim through the page and the whole thing is too "I want YOU to download THIS APP!!" if that wasn't blatant enough, even with the revisions. Past ones show some minor improvement, but nothing special. I'll attempt to revise some of the heavy areas, but the rest I'll leave up to other editors. The article is a stub mixed with ads, and everyone hates ads.

First, remove everything that is related over to the main site except for fine points. This includes links to the first-party, if they are avoidable. For example, rating window is a no since that is user experience while the rating symbols and the so-called "scorecard" are a yes since they gives some output of the result coming from the site. References that look back to the first-party are not references; they are links, in my opinion.

Second, remove the word "popular" or anything that have redirects to multiple areas that change the tone. That word can be associated to ads, which normally have a light-hearted tone, so at least keep a somewhat serious tone. The line "WOT ratings are shown on Google, Yahoo!, Gmail, Wikipedia, Digg, del.icio.us, AOL, Bing and other popular sites" revised to "WOT's results are shown on Google and other sites" have a huge difference, but even I cannot revise sentences simply like that.

Third, the program is using aggregate "scores," so refer to the program's result as "WOT's" or "its." Look back at my previous point. Another example is "Ratings in WOT" revised to "WOT's ratings." Read both of them aloud and notice the differences. You keep the serious tone in the latter, but sounds higher-pitched in the former.

Fourth, rename the "Recognition" section to "Critical Response" or something similar and expand. People who read Wikipedia want this response, not the "Recognition" for something that is almost unknown. Remember that this is level ground, not pro-First Party.

Finally, revise the introduction. Make this as a last attempt since this area is supposed to summarize the topic. If the page is an ad, so will the intro.

I appear to be talking to the lead editor of the article, who happens to be in relation the program, because he is the person who needs to know what Wikipedia is and isn't. To other editors, follow the points and see if you can improve on this article. I'm not a person who can revise a whole article yet. Totlmstr (talk) 02:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Fairly positive I removed the Ad-like qualities

I just changed a lot of wording to be more 'to the point' and removed some unnecessary sentences. I really don't think it reads like an ad anymore, however maybe the critical response section and privacy section are still a little bit off. I think however the article is not so off that it needs both of those tags, the ad-like one and the NPOV one. So I chose to remove one but leave the other. Obviously if this upsets you feel free to put it back, but just to let you know I do not have any ties or care to (or about) WOT, I simply have used it a couple times. Eddie mars (talk) 17:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Criticisms

I removed the following from the page. It contains fairly serious accusations, and also targets the CEO, which could be a BLP issue, so I'm leaving that out (it's in the history). The question is, regardless of the emotionalism of this rant, does it have some merit that can be verified? Or is totally off the wall? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

. Yes, it is totally off the wall and very possibly libel. I took the liberty of removing this smear from Wikipedia. WeatherFug (talk) 00:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Followup comments

A response to this article was posted here https://addons.mozilla.org/de/firefox/addon/3456/reviews/246253/

You can find other comments to the text here: http://www.mywot.com/de/forum/7730-attack-on-wikipedia Crabel (talk) 22:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

No. I doubt if there is anything worth salvaging from this wild nonsense. It's basically vandalism/spam. Too over-the-top, makes too many accusations of too many bodies in too many directions without any basis. I have seen this material elsewhere, and the author seems to prefer making broad attacks to actually showing any material to back up any of his/her charges. The mywot and ripoffreport links above are helpful in showing the history of a single person's anti-WOT campaign that has been going on for a couple of years now. Most likely this text has ended up here because it has not been taken seriously elsewhere.

Not at all sure such defamatory material should even be on the talk page, even though it makes interesting reading.

Addressing the issues raised in the rant, the most pertinent fact is that one does not have to register as a WOT user in order to get all the useful information about websites while surfing, nor even to rate websites. Without (truthful) registration details, it's hard to see how WOT can do anything more than track surfing habits at a particular IP address. I suspect that the vast majority of WOT users, are not registered.

FWIW, the original dispute between this person and mywot.com, may have started with a dispute over (unsurprising) ratings given to a whole server hosting porn and similar stuff: http://www.mywot.com/de/forum/7715-hellow-wot-users

No doubt mywot.com are seeking to make money, but I can't see any evidence anywhere yet of numbers of websites feeling extorted by this organisation. I'm sure there are problems and legitimate criticism to be made, and they should appear in the article, but in a case like this it should be remembered that this organisation is in the business of making enemies by exposing untrustworthy sites.

Centrepull (talk) 23:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

What I'm looking for here is input from folks who actually know something about this mywot thing, and I appreciate your input. It seems like this one guy is basically accusing them of being a spyware manufacturer. (Hasn't Google been similarly accused?) If the complaints turn out to have no verifiable merit, then we can safely delete this whole section. It would remain in the history if anyone feels the need to review it later. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

You can find some details about the accusation in the following links. Basically, the plugin is open source, so anyone can check what is being sent. And privacy policy et al are very clear about what is being stored. Personally, what impressed me was the staff does not interfere with the ratings without hard evidence of misconduct (e.g. several ratings with different usernames from the same IP). Trustseal or not, people are sent to the forum to improve their ratings.

http://www.mywot.com/wiki/FAQ#Malicious_rumors

http://threestarswatch.blogspot.com/2009/07/three-stars-media-launching-defamation.html

To give some examples for things which I think to be valid criticism: 1) I saw several cases where somebody bought a domain and realized later that it had a bad reputation. It was usually easily rectified after the new owner explained the situation in forum. 2) Small/young sites can be downrated by a couple of malicious people, e.g. competitors. When they don't know WoT, they might suffer from a bad reputation till they ask for help. 3) Comments on websites: When commentors stop using WoT actively, there comments are there forever. Even if the problem is resolved, the comments are still there (That's no problem for Wikipedia because the bad comments are "buried" on page 60+, but small sites suffer).

I believe that 1) and 2) might resolve themselves without interaction as soon as enough people know of WoT. For others, improvement ideas are regularily discussed in the forum. If you have any specific questions... Crabel (talk) 09:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I seem to recall a news article about the BBB selling their ratings as well, so to say that WoT does and BBB doesn't (as the above copy paste to which I am replying indicates) is false... (here is the link that I found on ABC news) 209.159.250.143 (talk) 20:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Another response to this article was posted here http://dukeo.com/mywot-web-of-trust-review-modern-web-totalitarism/ Convello 10:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

With very little research, a lot of bad user-experiences and interesting in-depth reviews can be found and would probably need to be represented on MyWot page.

An in-depth look at MyWot system illustrated with information taken directly from MyWot http://thundercloud.net/infoave/new/?p=818

Another review of MyWot http://www.foilball.com/mywot-com-another-false-review-site

Complete blog dedicated to exposing MyWot flaws http://mywotlies.wordpress.com/

A response to this article exposing abusive ratings http://www.flounder.com/web_of_lies.htm

An entrepreneur gets crushed by MyWot ratings http://thundercloud.net/infoave/new/?p=641 Convello 10:04, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Article name

I see why this article was moved from WOT: Web of Trust to MyWOT.com, but I still feel that its current name isn't a very good one. After all, the article mostly talks about the company and the technologies behind its rating tool; its website is hardly ever mentioned. So, I suggest that this article be moved. I think that "WOT Services, Ltd." is a good name. It avoids the conflict that caused it to be moved in the first place (the use of the phrase "Web of Trust"), and it would match the Infobox, which focuses on the company itself. Oneforfortytwo (talk) 01:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Major cleanup

As you may have noticed I started rewriting and cleaning up this article. I don't have much time, and I won't be able to finish it overnight. Please bear with me and temporary refrain from altering things until I am ready, thank you for your patience. WeatherFug (talk) 20:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have done this earlier, but here is it anyway, a report about the article rewrite. Let me start with a summary of the page's history. The first version of the article was written by a WOT staff member and read like an advert and manual. Later on gradually biased contributions from critics were entered, in the end resulting in a far too long and very unbalanced turmoil-generating mixture of POV either way. See [6]. To improve the article I decided to rewrite it from scratch, which mainly took place last December, resulting in the page as it is today. My intentions were simply to rewrite the article in an shockproof NPOV fashion, while its length should be in consistency with the importance of the subject (meaning quite short). After finishing the rewrite, I removed all tags from the page. I used information from the WOT website to make a short description of the company and its actions so far, summarizing it in my own words, in a strictly neutral tone of voice. For references to reviews, I exclusively used sources that are meeting Wikipedia standards on WP:NPOV and WP:RS beyond doubt. Actually, I have been quite forthcoming to the small minority of individual critics on boards etcetera, by adding following sentence to summarize their opinions: "Some people vent more harsh criticism, saying the system is too susceptible to faulty results caused by targeted, malicious efforts of biased users". As a reference I provided a link to Mozilla's WOT download & review page with plenty of critical reviews on it. (I hope I didn't go too far here? I could remove that of course, if needed.) Does the article meet Wikipedia standards on NPOV editing now? I think so. Regards WeatherFug (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Why use the phrase "some people"? Why imply that they are in the minority here? Because of the draconian nature of the WOT system, critical views are removed from their site. Objectively we can see that several people have gone out of their way to publish critical information on this service. We can also find instances of critical postings removed from the WOT system. Here on the talk page, several users have voiced their discontent with the representation you are promoting in this write up. Why do critics "vent" their criticism in your presentation? It sounds as if they are irrationally ranting their baseless opinions when phrased in this way. Why describe their criticism as "harsh", are they mean spirited or vindictive in some manner? You could have chosen a word like "serious" and continued to iterate over the specific criticisms, but you did not.

"Individuals have voiced more serious concerns...." "Victims of the WOT process have leveled more serious criticisms"

I appreciate you giving some background on the history of the article. However, once again it seems you have endeavored to talk past my concerns. This is a classic PR technique. Where in your response have you spoken about how this page does not display a promotional bias? When you said you needed a few days to come up with a response, I was expecting something more substantial. From where I stand, it seems like you did not have a substantial response for the duration. This presents rational case for your refusal to engage me here on the talk page. It also makes it appear as if you were just stalling for time, because you had nothing of substance to say.

One of my biggest issues with this service and what I believe to be at the core of the problem with WOT, is that the community of reviewers have little or no qualifications on the aggregate level. They know enough to throw around terminology and level accusations, but do not understand the underlying technology enough to back up their words. In a similar way to how you have accused me of accessing Wikipedia through "7 proxies". Did you check for the "X-FORWARDED-FOR" HTTP header or just throw out some terminology without knowledge? SpinningSpark called it properly by simply identifying that my IPs are all belonging to a single ISP's block.

For the above reasons I feel you have displayed your bias for whitewashing criticism from this article. Given the petty nature of the WOT community regarding critics, sock puppetry would not come as a surprise.

If you have nothing to say in response to my labeling of this article as a PR piece, please stop reverting my edits. We can go with the advert tag or the fan pov tag until the criticism section has been addressed. What would be sufficient in my opinion, would be removing the minimizing text and iterating over some of the more common criticisms. Otherwise this is just a one sided piece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.41.233.193 (talk) 04:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd rather not spend my valuable time engaging into discussions with people who obfuscate their movements on Wikipedia as you do. So, get a username for transparency, if you please, and you can have my answers, thank you. WeatherFug (talk) 10:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

If you can not approach the discussion, you can try to discredit my person, or more accurately, my ISP. Obfuscation implies positive action. Not joining your community where you play the role of petty tyrant amounts to inaction. Stop throwing around terminology you do not understand. Plainly said, I would prefer not to join with your community and validate your behavior.

Is it Wikipedia policy that those who do not join with your system, have no valid input? What does having a username change about what I have said above? What exactly am I obfuscating here? How am I responsible for your uneducated fears about my dynamic IP?

Again, you refuse to address what I have said as you endeavor to talk past my concerns. This only cements what I have said above. Stop stalling and engage me. Concede that you have no response if that is the case. Is it your design to tire me with these petty games? You seem willing to discuss anything but the topic at hand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.41.235.154 (talk) 11:55, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

It is very simple. Your actions on Wikipedia are not traceable, due to your ever changing IP. It feels kind of sneaky and I don't like that. WeatherFug (talk) 12:10, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

If we need to call in an admin to eventually help solving our dispute, admin needs to be able to view both our editing histories. In your case this is impossible. Agree? WeatherFug (talk) 12:38, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

It is not appropriate to harass other editors into registering an account. While there are many advantages to doing so, it is not a requirement as a matter of Wikimedia Foundation Policy. Please now desist from this. SpinningSpark 17:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear Spinningspark, I said 'if you please', so I think the word harass is a bit overdone here. I simply do not feel comfortable to be obliged to engage in discussions about rants, especially with someone who can easily go behind my back like mr. ecnip. I feel I have the right to decline an invitation under such circumstances. My only concern has been to make the article NPOV, and to keep it that way. As I already tried to point out to mr ecnip in the edit summaries (and you on your talk page), he is welcome to edit the article, if these edits meet Wikipedia standards. That's what really counts, doesn't it? Best regards, WeatherFug (talk) 18:17, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

OK then dear mr. ever-changing-Nepalese-IP, please forgive me for being somewhat sarcastic every now and then and let the nitpicking begin. Your first paragraph from 04:46, 18 May to start with:

Some people. Average daily only one or two people are reacting on that board, pro and con. Considering the thousands of daily downloads of the add-on there, I think "some people" is a very accurate description. Nevertheless, it could be replaced with f.i. "Individuals on personal Internet sites, message boards, comment forms and such.... ".

Vent. I feel there is nothing wrong with the word 'vent', but there are appropriate alternatives. Most neutral I find 'express'.

Harsh. The expression 'more harsh' is in consistency with the previously used 'mildly', only meant to indicate the degree of spiciness of the criticism. It does not express an opinion on validity of the content. Description 'less mild' could be used. I think the word 'serious' is more POV in this context and should be avoided. Using a word like 'victims' is very POV and completely out of the question, of course.

So, "Some people vent more harsh criticism, saying..." could become: "Individuals on personal Internet sites, message boards, comment forms and such, have expressed less mild criticism, saying ...", but does it improve neutrality? I don't think so, really. However, imo it worsens clarity and readability. Regards, WeatherFug (talk) 19:33, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

About the further content of your writing of 04:46, 18 May

So, dear mr. ever-changing-Nepalese-IP, you find I have "endeavored to talk past your concerns". Please understand I am neither promoting, nor defending this company. My only concern has been to make the article NPOV, and to keep it that way. It is not a matter of good or bad company, but of good or bad article. There definitely is a difference. I have not found a single valid argument in your writing, that suffices to label the article as an advert or PR piece. All it expresses is your bias against this company. Best regards, WeatherFug (talk) 19:55, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of whatever NPOV you claim to hold about myWOT, the end result reads like a PR piece for the company. I am not alone in my discontent with this presentation. Several other users have expressed concerns about myWOT and provided sources for criticisms. None of those alternate viewpoints are included in your so called NPOV presentation. The absence of these legitimate criticisms creates a one sided article in the voice of myWOT. How can that be considered neutral?

You want to make the issue about my IP address, or location, instead of my concerns about the article. This is how you respond to criticism, through stonewalling. The next paragraph from you is about how objective you are. Meanwhile you have a writeup that totally omits the criticisms posted here by several readers. You have arrived at an absurd juxtaposition of logic and common sense.

The answer is to include some criticisms of the company. It is notable that myWOT flags critical sites as containing malware, unsafe for children, etc. It flags them as unsuitable, dangerous, or whatever the alarmist language is. This is notable because dissenting voices are not harmful. It demonstrates some of the problems with the WOT community. Several people have posted this material. Despite all of your good natured neutrality, you have not included it in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.34.39.14 (talk) 01:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• deep sigh* Dear user 27.34.39.14, please stop your muttering. My comprehensive summary "saying the system is too susceptible to faulty results caused by targeted, malicious efforts of biased users" is referenced with a link to a message board. Usually references to webforums do not meet Wikipedia standards for WP:RS, see WP:RSOPINION. Should I remove that sentence then? I start feeling inclined to. Best regards WeatherFug (talk) 11:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

lack of criticism

This article does not elaborate enough on the petty nature of the site and its users. Nothing in the write up speaks to how unqualified the reviewers are, who have no technical background. All of this is well documented in the forums where site owners attempt to contest the ratings they receive. There are plenty of examples where someone has received a negative review based upon the reviewer's misunderstandings of technology. There are also examples where critics have had their site flagged for daring to criticize the MyWOT process. Given that the forums are integral to the community decision making process of MyWOT, why should we not be able to use them as a reference when documenting the many abuses of this group?

The truth needs to come out about how this group bullies small businesses based on their assumptions and desire to increase their status within the MyWOT community. There is a controversy here and Wikipedia should present both views to the public. The current article lacks balance. As I am not well versed in the methods of Wikipedia, I ask that an editor take up the task. As someone who feels that he is a victim of the MyWOT process my views may not be as objective as an editor who is not directly involved. Their abuses have reached a point where I fear to ask for a review in their community process. The MyWOT community often grudgingly fulfills vendettas against critics through their review system. Editors, please expand this article and consider both sides of the coin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.41.235.221 (talk) 09:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring over this NOW, and start discussing. I am quite willing to block offending users and/or lock down the article without any further warnings if this does not stop. SpinningSpark 11:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear Spinningspark, I reported the matter on the appropriate noticeboard. I feel there is nothing much to discuss here. Simple question: does the article read as an ad, yes or no. The answer is no, imo. What's yours? Regards, WeatherFug (talk) 12:11, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

My opinion is not relevant. Whatever the problem is, edit warring is not the solution. SpinningSpark 13:37, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

A thread has been opened on this at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#WOT Services, Ltd. SpinningSpark 14:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

More from Nepal: The user WeatherFug still seems to be serving as an apologist for the WOT company. I have left this article alone after becoming exhausted with WeatherFug's reversions. However the edit history shows that other users have run into this same issue with this user. If a more senior editor can take some action regarding this PR spectacle; I would consider it to be in the best interest of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.90.224.116 (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Wow! I think this article reads like a advertisement. I was reading about the many complaints on the net about WOT and came to Wikipedia to see what the WOT page would read like. I'm going to try to edit this article to make it less of a advertisement in a few days.--BeckiGreen (talk) 02:06, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I am also an innocent victim of WOT and their angry reviewers. After reading all this I think that wikipedia is not better than WOT and I am not confident anymore, I will stop donations and start to find my own sources, ho and I am also disgusted by WeatherFug. 110.171.118.137 (talk) 13:50, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit by user 68.228.204.90

Dear user 68.228.204.90, I reverted your edits because they do not meet Wikipedia standards for tone of voice (please read WP:NPOV ) and for source reliability (please read WP:RS ). Regards, WeatherFug (talk) 17:48, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Way to less critic in this article

This system is unbelivable easy to manipulate. It did that with my own website. After having a bad rating i asked for help on the mywot forum. They where very very unkind there and did not helped me in any way. I just called some friends and rated my own website much better in a few days. There are no controll mechanisms. Everyone with a little time can rate a website in a few days up or down. This software is like a privat internet censorship and manipulation tool free to use for everyone. --81.200.198.20 (talk) 10:49, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Unbalanced-tag by user 116.90.224.115

Dear user with the ever-changing Nepalese IP , if you think this article is unbalanced, please try to improve the article by making appropriate contributions, not by just tagging. If you fail to make an effort to improve the article while meeting Wikipedia standards, I will remove the tag soon. Thank you,WeatherFug (talk) 02:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

We have been down this road before... You have endeavored to omit all of the criticisms others have listed above. Now after reverting my edits, you suggest that I edit the article. Everyone can see what you are doing here. How about you stop trolling this article for the benefit of WOT? Why should I carry the burden of editing this article you have claimed as your personal turf? Please consider revisions before reverting my tag.

You are the one who has stonewalled and found an excuse to remove anything that does not paint WOT in a positive light. The article is in this unbalanced state because of your apologist positions, and overzealous reversions. The edit history speaks for its self. Others have already contributed the critical material, you just wont allow it to be posted.

The burden is on you, if you would like to remove that tag; First edit the article for balance. At least come in here to the talk section and outline some areas for concession. So far you have not offered anything remotely similar to collaboration or cooperation. If you want to create an unbalanced and biased PR piece, so be it. If you want to delete all of the dissenting views from this article, I won't stop you. But don't complain when the article gets tagged as such. A consensus is building about the quality of your contributions to this page.

It is beyond absurd for you to suggest that the responsibility is mine to edit the article, after you have consistently obstructed those who would add balance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.90.227.201 (talk) 01:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Well then. Again, please feel free to contribute to the article in a constructive manner by Wikipedia rules. WeatherFug (talk) 21:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

If Wikipedia's rules are meaningful they will ban you. Otherwise, they are a set of subjective standards that can be applied to remove any given passage of text. My words and the criticisms of other concerned persons stand firm. You can address it or ignore it, but the unbalanced tag will stay until we have a consensus. No amount of snark can change that. Reply when you are ready to address these issues, keep the rest to yourself.

Dear user with the ever-changing Nepalese IP, (36.252.57.10 this edit). Please do not reinstall the unbalanced-tag again. I removed it after it was there for more than a year, that should be sufficient imo. If you repeat your actions it will be considered vandalism and I will request page protection. Regards, WeatherFug (talk) 17:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

A consensus is building about the quality of your contributions to this page. I welcome you to bring your activities to the attention of Wikipedia's administration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.252.67.146 (talk) 11:50, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Dear user with the ever-changing Nepalese IP, I once again removed your 'unbalanced' tag. The tag is meant to be an invitation to improve the article, it should not be used as a warning signal. During more than a year I gave you the opportunity to prove your point. However, there have been no valid edits in this context. There is no need for the tag. Once again: The article is in my opinion in no way unbalanced. I personally made the effort some time ago to edit the article to assure it is ultimately WP:NPOV and I think I succeeded pretty well. I challenge you once more: please specify (using only reliable sources) exactly which word(s)/phrases/paragraphs lead you to think the article is unbalanced. Thank you, WeatherFug (talk) 01:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

You have endeavored to remove anything that does not paint WOT Services in a positive light. While you may feel this offers a balanced presentation, the consensus here on this talk page is otherwise. In fairness to yourself, I will admit that some of the passages which you removed were poorly composed. Instead of improving the composition, you have removed all of the contributions which are unflattering to WOT Services. This pattern of editing is troubling. Another user has mentioned that they are 'disgusted' with this behavior. I hope we can find a way around this impasse.

When a consensus has been reached regarding the neutrality of this article, I will gladly yield. As it stands, this talk page speaks for its self. Please consider adding some of the removed material or including sources which have been previously mentioned on this talk page. In short, the unbalanced tag should be removed when we have reached a consensus that the article is balanced.

If you can quote where it is written that there is a time limit for article tags, that would be helpful for this process. Thanks for taking the time to engage with me here on this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.252.243.246 (talk) 02:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Dear user with the ever-changing Nepalese IP, If there is anything negative about WOT published by reliable sources, of course I would not object to have it in the article. However, there is no "consensus" possible when it comes to tolerating obvious POV (pro or con) and references that do not meet Wikipedia guidelines for reliable sources in the article. I asked for Wikipedia:Third opinion. Regards, WeatherFug (talk) 17:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I hope the additional input can help to resolve the issue, although calling it a third opinion seems a bit of a stretch. Several users have already expressed their dissatisfaction with the article's presentation. A consensus has been established regarding the neutrality of this article. As it stands, you are the only one who has expressed the view that current presentation is balanced. Until a consensus has been reached which establishes the neutrality of the article, I kindly ask that you stop removing the unbalanced tag. Thanks again for discussing here on the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.252.81.98 (talk) 03:12, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

3O Response: I'll will offer my 2 cents worth here. Scolaire (talk) 11:25, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that there does seem to be an amount of negative criticism about, as evidenced by the number of edits to the article and the space devoted to it on the talk page, but it is very difficult to find reliable sources for that criticism. There is therefore some justification for the tag. But on the other hand, a tag serves no purpose if it's not going to be acted on.
I checked most, if not all, of the links added and removed over the last eighteen months or so. Links to forums are obviously not acceptable, but I did find one link, that was one of a group of four or so in one edit, and was consequently removed when the edit was reverted. It was this article at ResourcesForLife.com. Now, I don't know anything about these people, but a scan of various articles on the site suggests to me that it is factually and neutrally written, and I would have no difficulty in accepting it as a reliable source (there is an article on its owner here that includes a profile of the organization from the inside of his book). The beauty of this article is that (a) it is an actual study, not an opinion piece, and (b) it is balanced, giving both the criticisms and the arguments against them. In fact, it concludes that the criticisms are unfair.
If you both agreed that the source is a reasonable one to work from, I suggest that the two of you collaborate here on the talk page on writing a summary – no longer than the paragraphs that were previously added and deleted – of what it says. If you can agree a text in, say, two weeks, then I see no harm in leaving the tag in place in the meantime. If you're still at a stalemate by year's end, then there's no point in leaving it any longer. Scolaire (talk) 11:25, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Dear Scolaire, thank you for your opinion. I never denied that some criticism on WOT exists, but I think the link you are suggesting is too weak, imo. It is not from a reputable news source, and I think those are the only ones that should be allowed here. The tag serves no purpose, there has been no valid contribution in well over a year. Best regards, WeatherFug (talk) 12:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you go to the reliable sources noticeboard and ask whether the source can be considered valid under WP:RS. It really is not enough to delete all edits on sight on the basis of RS and then say that "you think" a certain source would not be allowable. I am also puzzled by the suggestion that a "news source" is required. Why news?

As regards the tag, there has been activity; whether it is valid activity is only a matter of opinion. Scolaire (talk) 14:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

With 'news' sources I meant reliable, published sources. And, given the flammable nature of much of the contributed POV and hyperlinks to dubious content, I think the sources also should of the highest notability, preferably articles written and published by well-known press outlets. With all due respect to the resourcesforlife.com owner, he just does not meet the needed notability here. I'll take it to the reliable sources noticeboard. Thank you, best regards, WeatherFug (talk) 16:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The person on RSN said he did not think that the source is usable, but he added, " the article...looks like it has clear NPOV problems", and "should be considered over at the NPOV board". So I have raised it there. Scolaire (talk) 18:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Wow! No critic in that article?

Didn't ever googled anyone of you "mywot scam" or "mywot fraud"? :) --85.179.96.83 (talk) 13:46, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I removed a unsourced sentence in the article as a result. Knox490 (talk) 06:38, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit by user 39.32.97.167

Hi, I removed your edit because it violates Wikipedia guidelines for Reliable Sources, see WP:RS. Regards, WeatherFug (talk) 17:05, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I've been monitoring this issue for sometime, but now I feel I must state the obvious and say what needs to be said. User Weatherfug's edits appear as if he is in the employ of WOT Services. This has gone on for too long. I don't think it makes sense to engage with Weatherfug in a discussion. The user's motives are obvious to me. It is probably better to report him. Warm regards Anarchosyndicaslistwhale (talk) 10:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Informal Third Opinion

This article is listed as wanting a third opinion about the NPOV since it appears one or more editors need to take a deep breath. (I neither have nor want a named account. Hopefully people will look past that, and just assess or duplicate the work below.)

I decided that a good way to learn about the controversy about WOT, would be to search for articles and article counts.

I used DuckDuckGo (my default search engine), and then Google, Yahoo and Bing to search for "WOT controversy" and "Web of Trust controversy". (First page/screenful only, since that's as far as most people go.) Results: World Of Tanks is surprisingly popular (but not helpful here.:)

• Google came up with nothing relevant (remember, first page only).
• DuckDuckGo came up with several sites:
  • http://www.softpedia.com/reviews/windows/WOT-Web-of-Trust-Review-385828.shtml which mentions criticisms and biases, albeit dismissively.
  • http://www.maximumpc.com/article/web_exclusive/firefox_addon_week_web_trust ,which mentions no criticisms of WOT.
  • http://wottrust.blogspot.ca/2012/06/mywot-web-of-trust-review-modern-web.html , which is someone's blog flaming about it.
  • http://www.infopackets.com/news/5975/web-trust-and-chromium-70 (no criticism)
• Yahoo turned up the site: http://skeptools.wordpress.com/category/web/web-of-trust/ , which asks its community to push its point of view through WOT, but not directly criticizing WOT.

Yahoo also turned up: http://download.cnet.com/WOT-Web-of-Trust-for-Firefox/3000-11745_4-10588554.html The editors at CNET make no mention of bias or controversy.

• Bing, well Bing also found nothing relevant.

So. Two search engines that found no controversy (on the first page), at least for me. Of 4 review sites, only one editor mentions bias or criticism, but is dismissive of them. Of the two blogs, one is a flame, and the other demonstrates that at least one group is actively trying to push their bias. OTOH, blogs aren't citable, so presumably these hits should get given less weight. (Caveat: search engines include prior search history and location etc in their effort, so your mileage may vary. If it does, please post the results.)

For comparison, since someone mentioned the BBB, I DDG'd "Better Business Bureau Controversy", and the second hit was http://ctwatchdog.com/business/better-business-bureau-leadership-to-meet-in-aftermath-of-devastating-abc-expose which indicated that there was significant criticism of the BBB. The wiki article does have a large criticism section.

I also picked the first other user-review-based site I could think of, which was Yelp. "Yelp controversy" has no shortage of hits. The Yelp wiki page doesn't have an explicit criticism section, but it clearly has sections critical of the process.

I expect every user-reviewed-based system to be vulnerable to bias problems. I think it might be fair to mention that there are dissatisfied stakeholders, but my only problem suggesting adding something like this, would be the problem of finding a suitably quotable citation. (Blogs won't do.)

In particular, since it's so hard to get search engines to serve up WOT criticism, then any section on WOT criticisms should be equally small, perhaps only a sentence, and certainly much smaller than the BBB or YELP uncomplimentary sections.

If our Nepalese editor or BeckiGreen (or any other critic) can find a suitable (reputable) newspaper article etc. describing the controversy, (not a blog, not a comment on a website etc.), then I think it should be ok to add a sentence summarizing the criticism in the article. Until then, maybe not.

I also think WeatherFug should be commended for the work put into this article, but our Nepalese IP editor might have a point too (albeit poorly expressed.)

Just my opinion, since you asked for a disinterested third opinion. (If you don't both hate me, I haven't done my job.) 173.206.128.57 (talk) 10:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

If you are looking for criticism of WOT or any online property, scam (as suggested by another IP above) would be the appropriate keyword. Controversy seems a bit archaic in this context. After checking Google for 'web of trust scam' (query without quotes or exact phrase) I found several critical sites within the top ten results. Again, thank you for taking the time to provide your 3rd opinion.

A community review site had this to offer: http://www.sitejabber.com/reviews/www.mywot.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.252.140.246 (talk) 04:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Here is TheNation.com's response to WOT's labeling of their emails as 'malware': http://www.thenation.com/web-trust . True to form, one of WOT's power users who's ratings carry greater weight labeled the site as 'malware or viruses' as recently as 03/31/2014. Evidence plays no role in these accusations as the accusers are not qualified malware researchers. They are hobbyists who enjoy posting alarmist material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.252.151.28 (talk) 03:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Tag bombing

I removed two tags as there is no credible evidence that they are realistic concerns (I read this talk page and the article first). Just for the avoidance of doubt, this is a non-admin action, but I will be looking over the debate here with my admin hat on. Guy (Help!) 18:16, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Edit War

I would appreciate it if editors would engage on the talk page before reverting edits. We do not need another edit war here. I also encourage editors to add their own material or improve existing passages. Simply removing passages that do not fit with an editor's agenda is not a good way to achieve compromise or collaboration. For editors who have previously taunted others with phrases like 'edit it if you can' these reverts are a troubling departure from the concept of good faith.

JZW's most recent revert labeled 'nobody cares' is less than encouraging to say the least. People do care. Many have added their thoughts here to this talk page. My expectations for the conduct of someone announcing themselves as an admin were higher than this. Hopefully this was only a careless mistake on his part.

Although we disagree, I admire WeatherFug's dogged determination. He has added most of the content we see here today. For whatever reason, his edits appear to whitewash all criticism from the article. I do ask that he recognize his own bias in this matter. There is no reason why we can not compromise here. Although it is plain to me that he has cherry picked the most flattering passages from already sycophantic reviews, I suggest that we keep his review section. If those who disagree with his presentation are willing to concede this, there is no reason for him to misconstrue the facts about the information presented at The Nation. If both sides are willing to make concessions, there is no reason why we can not work together.

Concerning those recent edits to further minimize the criticism in the article, I do ask that the editors take the time to engage and explain their edits here. Perhaps there was a specific sentence in that section we could work to improve. This seems like a better way forward than reverting the entire section as if it were the reverting editor's personal turf. I look forward to collaborating with you all in the spirit of compromise and balance. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.253.223.215 (talk) 04:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Dear user with the ever-changing Nepalese IP, I didn't even *deep sigh* anymore. Regards, WeatherFug (talk) 15:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Maybe this is a sign you are ready to collaborate? Do you care to explain your recent reversions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.253.20.36 (talk) 03:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

"Maybe this is a sign you are ready to collaborate?" No way, it means I'm only smiling now. "Do you care to explain your recent reversions?" No, I already did several times before. End of discussion. Regards, WeatherFug (talk) 15:23, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Despite this section heading, I have noticed that you have continued to make reversions. In the interest of moving this process forward, can you please explain your problem with the reference to this disclaimer which you have previously reverted? Again, I encourage you to engage here. Thanks.36.253.20.36 (talk) 11:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I ended up removing that, as it was not being referenced in an article - just on the site itself. It would require synthesis to include it, unless it was referenced in another source. It is telling, and important, but the issue was its sourcing. ScrapIronIV (talk) 14:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

It was on the site, but it was not part of user contributed content. I'll leave the interpretation of Wikipedia's byzantine requirements to others. Honestly, I wanted no part in editing this article as I find rationales like the ones for exclusion of this passage absurd. Readers will note that aside from tagging, I have only pleaded for balance on the talk page. The instant and complete reversion of my only contribution of content was not unexpected. I had only edited the section because the misuse of the source seemed extreme & because another 3rd opinion user insisted that it was necessary.

Let us move along to the misconstruction of the source. The Nation plainly states: "For bullet point two, we did contact the original user who left the bad comment on elabs10.com and he said it was a mistake." Why is it an issue to include this? The way the passage is written now, it sounds as if the error might have been on the part of The Nation magazine.

For the section heading, I must point out the obvious. Accurate ratings are not an issue. Inaccurate ratings are an issue. Biases contribute to inaccuracy. Hence, the section heading: "Inaccurate & biased ratings" The word "issues" is extraneous when we address the subject.

If a consensus for balance has not been reached, the unbalanced tag should remain. Readers will note that I had not edited the page after WeatherFug's most recent revert. Instead I brought the issue here. Page protection seems overzealous in view of this. I would like to remind JzW/GUY that unregistered users are not to be excluded, as a matter of wiki policy. I encourage him to substantiate the allegations he has made in his edit notes. I find it incredible that someone can be accused of POV pushing for trying to include neglected views which are popular here on the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.253.41.67 (talk) 05:13, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I have a similar concern. I only learned of WOT because of a posting on Third Opinion. The article is seriously biased to a specific POV, and any attempt to put a balanced tone gets reverted. Now, lucky me, I get tagged with "suspicions of sockpuppetry" or some such nonsense. WOT is not important to me, but as a newer editor, I am finding the politics of Wikipedia to be more trouble than its worth. ScrapIronIV (talk) 15:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

There is much we could say about the meta-issue of Wikipedia's pedantic nature. I am confident that issue will not be addressed. I suggest that moving forward, we restore the sentence clarifying what was written at The Nation. If they choose to edit war again and refuse to engage on the talk page, we will have to seek other remedies. Surely there is another wiki bureau which addresses this kind of thing. If you have any thoughts on how to best proceed, I am interested in hearing them.

Even the NPOV board concurred that the article had "serious issues". It is not only users on the talk page or novices like ourselves who recognize this problem. Does JzW consider the NPOV board to be populated by 'sockpuppets' ? The (lack of) activity by WeatherFug and JzW on this talk page should be illustrative of their desire to collaborate.

For the unbalanced tag, my view is that it should stay. The article now contains excerpts from flowery reviews. In this sense it is even more unbalanced than before the 3rd opinions. Numerous articles have contained tags for long periods of time. Above, I asked WeatherFug if he could quote where a time limit for article tags is established. At this time, no explanation has been provided. We can also see above where he has declined to discuss by declaring that the discussion is over.

Finally, I would like to thank everyone who has contributed on this talk page. Even the individuals who I disagree with, and especially those who have provided substance to the discussion. People do care about the quality of this article, despite the dismissive actions of JzW/GUY. Let us not allow the unfortunate actions of a few discourage the concerns of the majority. 36.252.114.225 (talk) 14:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Your error is to assume that I don't care about the quality of the article. I do. In particular, I care that any criticism is properly sourced and accurately represents those sources. In fact, I care that all the content meets those requirements. See below. Guy (Help!) 22:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Recent Revert

The last reversion was unwarranted. As there are only a few here actually editing the article, you may wish to consider others' opinions. The prior version as written by the IP editor is clearer, better written, and actually explains what happened. It is not overly wordy, and does not add any undue weight. The reversion returns it to a version which is vague, and unclear. ScrapIronIV (talk) 19:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

This is now moot since there is no evidence of the significance of this event. Guy (Help!) 18:48, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Moot or otherwise, it was significant to the history of the company. But you win; you may keep this wonderfully whitewashed page. I leave the two of you with your little playground. And the next time you insinuate that I am a sockpuppet, I would recommend you start an WP:SPI. You have been around long enough to know better. ScrapIronIV (talk) 19:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not "whitewashed". All you need to do is produce reliable sources independent of the two parties proving that it is considered significant by anybody other than them. That's all you've ever had to do. Read WP:RS and WP:PRIMARY. Guy (Help!) 23:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the article has been whitewashed. I also note that the article has a history of edits by those involved with the company. As to your assertion that 'The Nation' is a blog. I must disagree. It is a political magazine who's views I do not sympathize with. Where you attribute the magazine's negative rating to ignorance or stupidity, I agree with with you in spirit. However, it is a bit of editorializing on your part to make this subjective judgement.

The ignorance of the reviewers is the biggest problem with WOT. Few if any of their users are qualified to label something as malware. I included language to this effect in my initial edit of the passage. Why is it impossible to include this language, but it is appropriate to say that the tool can be freely used by anyone? Issues like this speak to the whitewashing and lack of balance in this write-up. If we are unable to achieve a consensus for balance, the unbalanced tag should remain.

I suggest that the passage clarifying the incident at The Nation be inserted again, without the subject heading including the word bias. I will leave this proposal here for discussion before reinserting the passage. 36.253.143.58 (talk) 07:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

"Clarifying"? It does not "clarify" anything. Under the heading "inaccurate and biased reviews", you wrote "Political magazine [[The Nation]] received a negative rating from WOT Services for their outgoing emails. The Nation inquired with the user responsible for the rating, who admitted that he had erroneously rated the domain. The magazine called upon readers who felt compelled, to help to improve the rating. <ref>{{cite web|title=FAQ: Web of Trust|url=http://www.thenation.com/web-trust|date=|accessdate=17 January 2015|publisher=[[The Nation]]}}</ref>" That is a clear and obvious fail per our sourcing and neutrality policies. Unambiguously prohiited.

So now I have decided to look into the content in more detail.

Not only is this clearly tendentious and not supported by reliable independent sources, it's not even an accurate reflection of the content of the primary source you quote. The Nation never received a negative rating, as they make perfectly clear.

That page (actually quite calm, markedly so in contrast to your advocacy of your interpretation of its content) notes that the spam targeted email provider they use, got a poor rating. The rating user admitted an error. The Nation wanted this fixed RIGHT NOW (mustn'y disrupt the flow of spam targeted email, after all), so tried to push water uphill rather than wait a bit - WOT ratings usually take a little while to sort themselves out after an error in my albeit limited experience - and even then all they did was solicit people to go and rate the site (incidentally, this form of manipulation is a valid criticism of WOT, a lot of crank websites do just that). Users didn't "feel compelled" to re-rate the email provider, they were solicited to do so, directly. Nothing about your text is a neutral depiction of this trivial incident.

You obviously have some serious problem with WOT but you have failed to provide content that complies with policy. Feel free to propose something here that is an accurate reflection of genuine and substantive criticisms reflected in reliable independent sources. And ideally, please give some background to the reason you are so very determined to insert critical content, because it is anything but clear right now and your attitude by now openly invites speculation that you are involved with a site in dispute with WOT. That would be a reason for proposing changes here not changing the article directly, but honest statements of involvement of that kind are not a problem in my view. Some Wikipedians consider it a no-no, but I'm not one of them. Guy (Help!) 08:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

First of all, I want to thank you for discussing the article's content here. If we can discuss in a spirit of fair and honest debate, then I am confident we can resolve this regardless of the outcome.

For background, I am a publisher. I am not that guy who has published blogs criticizing WOT. Let me say that people who publish meta-content about affiliate marketing and how to make money online are full of it. If they were skilled publishers who earned substantial revenue, they would not need to publish those materials. Those who can not do, teach.

I have published shareware software utilities and web services that are supported by ads. I never included ads in downloadable software. Ads were only published on the optional free registration site. WOT has flagged these things as unsafe for children, scams, malware, and used all types of alarmist language. I assume this is because users must participate in advertisements or pay to receive full functionality. In the era of adblock, this is necessary. If anyone is scamming, it is the user who cheats the publisher of his ad-revenue. People want everything for free these days. They feel so entitled, that when you ask for payment for your work they call you a scammer and publisher of malware. When you give them a free option, like giving their information to marketers, the entitled types go off the deep end with alarmist clap-trap. One site which simply required users to sign up and not provide their email or other details, was flagged as phishing. Just asking the user to log in or sign up prompted the WOT users to flag it as phishing. It really is too much. Even WOT & Wikipedia ask users to sign up. If they had submitted honey pot credentials which later became compromised, that would be appropriate. But the illiterates at WOT did no such thing, they simply jumped to alarmist conclusions.

All of that is info I am volunteering to you. I feel it is outside the parameters of an honest debate, because arguing against someone's identity is illogical. My identity should be irrelevant. I hope we can keep this discussion centered around the content and how to keep it within a fair interpretation of policy. I offer this extraneous info as a token of good faith and hope to be repaid in kind. You noted that you use WOT yourself, so if there is an argument that I am being irrationally critical of WOT, it could also be said that as a user of the service you support it irrationally. However, I do not feel this assertion is necessary or helpful. Let us continue in a spirit of fairness.

Finally, before we get into it, I would like to color your flavor a bit more if I may. WOT is quackery & fringe in my opinion. You would not ask your bartender for a cancer diagnosis. Likewise, why ask computer novices if something is malware? They are not qualified. The service is not targeted at computer literate persons, developers, reverse engineers, or virus analysts. It is designed to keep novices from downloading something malicious. If we can find a source which speaks to this issue, my concerns would be sated. I am not looking to vandalize the article. Nor do I claim that the service has no redeeming qualities. Plenty of dishonest material slandering WOT has been published on the web. I am not here for that. Please exercise good faith and do not assume the worst.

Lets move on from the subject heading including the word bias. I have explained multiple times on the ANI thread that I did not include that in my most recent edit. I did this to respect your rightful concerns. Bringing this in now seems irrelevant. Lets try to discuss this fairly.

"...received a negative rating from WOT Services for their outgoing emails. " I did explain that it applied to the outgoing emails only. We can not know the specifics of how or why The Nation or elabs10 has this email set up. Most likely it has something to do with tracking and optimizing click-throughs as a service. Explaining this in the article seemed extraneous. Think of how this must have appeared for the computer novices subscribed to these emails. They would be wondering if The Nation was trying to compromise their systems with a virus. In view of that, I felt the wording was clear. WeatherFug's version which you supported made it sound like The Nation made an error.

Before we go any further, I have some questions of my own for JzG. Have you reviewed the forums where WOT suggests that site owners participate and ask for ratings? Please tell me if you feel those discussions make sense or are fair to publishers. If you do not see a problem with that process, I am not sure we can reach a point of common ground and understanding. I grant you that some of those publishers are into dubious practices. However, even in those cases the reaction by the illiterates of the forum is hardly justified. Labeling something as not child safe when the tag is clearly meant for indecent materials would be an example. Tagging a site that does not even offer binaries for download as malware/viruses would be another. Calling cookies a form of malware is another example WOT's absurdity.

As a last tidbit, here is another criticism that most probably will not be an acceptable source, but I think deserves your attention. After all, HP Hosts is noted as a site which has collaborated with WOT: http://hphosts.blogspot.com/2009/12/fyi-to-pharmalert-and-other-reviewers.html And no, I am not involved with the site nepalnews.com which is referenced in this short blog post. 36.252.1.186 (talk) 04:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

First, your edit did not accurately reflect the source. Second, the source is primary and does not establish the significance of the claim or even its factual accuracy (it is the view of one side only). Third, you make a general accusation of bias and inaccuracy, in Wikipedia's voice, based on a single obvious and admitted error.

Your comment about "the illiterates at WOT" is polemic, indicates an obvious agenda (still unexplained) and attributes systemic carelessness to an entire organisation based on a single admitted error by one user. That is like saying the whole of Wikipedia is worthless because one user introduced an error into an article, and then admitted it was an error so it got sorted out.

What you now need to do is exactly what you have always needed to do: bring reliable independent sources establishing the significance of the event and its context, with fact-checking. Blog posts are not reliable sources. Read WP:RS. Guy (Help!) 07:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Article Content & Title

WOT is not just a browser add-on, actually it is a service which have different services, 1. Search website in mywot.com scorecard and get the results if the website is safe or not and why it is or why it is not. 2. Filter addon 3. Browser addon for showing website safety 4. Mobile browser addon. So in MyWOT/WOT Web of Trust is service which offers different solutions for safe browsing. As the current article really talks mostly about the browser addon and slightly mentions about the scorecard I suggest to make changes in the content, mainly introduction part and add information about other services as well Filter and mobile addon also. This will help to present the company correctly and give users correct information. Current title doesn't support what Web of Trust is doing, so my suggestion is for writing correct Title in a way so it will be relevant to content. Below is my suggested edits.

WOT (Web of Trust) is a partly crowdsourced Internet website reputation rating tool developed by WOT Services. The website rating tool is available in two formats – users can either search a website's reputation on the WOT website or download a browser add-on that automatically checks every visited website's rating. The search feature allows people to assess the reputation and safety of any web address by typing the address into a search bar on the WOT website. Each web address is rated and assigned a score under two separate metrics – trustworthiness and child safety. User reviews are also presented underneath the scorecard for each website, expressing each user's own reason(s) for trusting or not trusting a given site. Website owners are also presented with the opportunity to claim their site, giving them the opportunity to communicate with their website's users. Site owners can also request a review of their site's reputation score and add a custom description of their site to the scorecard.

The installed browser add-on, available for Firefox, Google Chrome, Opera and Internet Explorer, shows its users the reputations of websites, which are calculated through a combination of user ratings and data from other sources. To generate revenue WOT licenses the use of its reputation database to other businesses.

WOT Services

Aside from the WOT website reputation tool, the company markets two other services – Filter by WOT and WOT Mobile.

Filter by WOT is a customizable web filter that allows users to choose what kind of web content they want to see. The service is available for Google Chrome as a free add-on. Apart from allowing users to control which sites, domains, or pages they want to display, Filter by WOT also has a keyword scanner that automatically blocks any page that a given keyword appears on.[11]

WOT Services also offers a free app on the Google Play Store that notifies users when they browse unsafe websites on their mobile devices. The WOT Mobile application works on both the Chrome browser and users' native mobile browsers. WOT Mobile utilizes user reputation ratings to display warning notifications to users when they are about to browse websites with poor user ratings.[12]

The website of WOT Services also has a community section with a forum and a blog. The forum is used for community members to discuss website ratings, security, and online safety. The blog is updated regularly with information for readers about browsing safely on the web. WOT Services also offers its original browser add-on for enterprise use. This allows companies to install the WOT add-on to employees' computers for free after each company's details are registered on the WOT website.[13] SEOna b (talk) 13:20, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Removal of WOT availability

Noticed that WOT is no longer available for Google Chrome or Firefox, anyone know what's going on? It's still available for Android.

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/wot-web-of-trust-website/bhmmomiinigofkjcapegjjndpbikblnp https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/wot-safe-browsing-tool/

The WOT website (https://www.mywot.com/en/download) is still up with download buttons, but they don't seem functional or link to the actual extension pages anymore.

Indefensible (talk) 02:55, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I checked last night, after reading your comment, Indefensible. The WOT plugin has been pulled by Mozilla for Firefox browser, and now redirects here on Mozilla Addons. I was unable to find the plugin for Google Chrome browser either, only the mobile version. Maybe Mozilla and Google temporarily pulled WOT from their plugin stores, in order to confirm whether WOT violates their transparency policies, in light of the recent NDR investigation. --FeralOink (talk) 01:09, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the investigation and reply FeralOink. We'll see what happens, looks like I may have to dig around for a replacement extension. Indefensible (talk) 06:08, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

——————

FWIW, I edited the summary to try and get the "FF removed WOT" as early as possible in the summary, because only the first part of the summary is displayed by google search and by wiki mouse-over highlighting.

When I saw WOT wasn't offered on the Noscript site investigation page any more, I googled, which displayed the first part of the wiki entry. It said nothing about the recent travails. But trusting wiki, I open the article, learned about the fracas, and read the references.

Hoping to aid those who followed me, I updated the summary to make recent actions directly visible without having to follow a link.

I hope those who are editing after me will preserve this early visibility. HiTechHiTouch (talk) 02:00, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

NDR Germany investigation of privacy concerns

I noticed the new section on privacy concerns that was added over the past several days. I made a few changes. First, I consolidated the first and second paragraphs, as they were redundant. In other words, both paragraphs referred to the findings of the same November 2016 investigation by German public broadcaster, NDR. Next, I consolidated some of the duplicate references in that section.

Finally, I removed content that said that the investigation revealed sensitive information about 50 WOT users "including public figures like managers, polititians, policemen, judges, lawyers, and journalists". This is why I did that: After a close reading of the article in Der Spiegel, I inferred that the third-party purchasers of the inadequately anonymized WOT user data included managers, politicians, policemen, judges, lawyers, and journalists. Der Spiegel describes them as private parties, not public. It would be helpful if an editor who was fluent in the German language could review the reference cited (the Der Spiegel article) and confirm whether or not my understanding is correct. I retained the details about the sample of 50 WOT users, as that was supported by the references. In my opinion, all the reference sources are NPOV. --FeralOink (talk) 05:13, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Your conclusions are incorrect. They were able to track down information ABOUT certain politicians, judges, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.181.204.107 (talk) 13:58, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

IP User (or anyone else who has decent reading comprehension of the German language), please feel free then to correct my edits, or provide me with additional information so that I can do it myself.--FeralOink (talk) 19:11, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Journalists used WOT to visit a server that was only visible in the journo's own network - and they found data referencing that site visit in WOT's user data. They were also able to reconstruct the names of users from URLs which WOT had not anonymized. Via URLs grabbed by WOT, were also able to access bank account data, salary slips, photocopied ID documents and details on a bank mortgage - including the user's name. Maybe this know-it-all FeralOink should FIRST do some research, THEN delete stuff he doesn't want to believe. The c't article isn't available for free online yet: https://shop.heise.de/katalog/spione-im-browser The original article: https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/netzwelt/Nackt-im-Netz-Millionen-Nutzer-ausgespaeht,nacktimnetz100.html An IT Security blog about the problem including technical details: https://www.kuketz-blog.de/wot-addon-wie-ein-browser-addon-seine-nutzer-ausspaeht/ AVAST Forum on the Privacy scandal: https://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=192618.15 Another blog in English https://rejzor.wordpress.com/2016/11/02/web-of-trust-wot-privacy-scandal/ Due to the privacy scandal, the WOT addon has been removed from Firefox and Chrome. http://techdows.com/2016/11/web-of-trust-add-on-removed.html

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.110.95.2 (talk) 09:31, 15 November 2016 (UTC) 

WOT versus TOW

I removed the following section of the article, as it is inadequately sourced:

In 2015, WOT Services officially changed its name to TOW Software, and finally ceased operations in June 2016. While the service still operates, its current ownership is unclear and not disclosed on the website.

The only source given was this, BIS - Business information system (Finland), which describes a company named TOW going out of business ("liquidated") as of 2016. Wikipedia requires more than a naming coincidence, i.e. TOW = WOT spelled in reverse, to establish facts.

The larger issue of who owns WOT remains unknown. I searched by address and initial funding round investors from Crunchbase, but could not find anything definitive. Even if I did, I would need an NPOV source, and to avoid WP:SYNTH. It is certainly appropriate to include some reference to a company's ownership or management in a Wikipedia article! The lack of such is notable in its own right. I need to think about this a little more, but would appreciate any input from other editors. It is a sufficiently peculiar situation that I am considering making a request for comment (RfC) from the Wikipedia community for guidance. Any thoughts, suggestions?--FeralOink (talk) 02:42, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

The YTJ source does clearly show that WOT Services Oy (Oy = Ltd) became TOW Software Oy on 02/18/2016 and filed for liquidation on 06/30/2016. However, WOT's Privacy Policy clearly states ownership by WOT Services Ltd and is dated July of this year (i.e. after the change to TOW). This Finnish version of the "about us" page still lists company 2046987-7 as owner and not any other party. So, I think it is accurate to say the WOT Services became TOW Software, and even that the company is currently listed as being in liquidation (not the same as being not trading), there is no evidence to say that ownership has changed. The YTJ source can be used as a citation. Shritwod (talk) 09:22, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Added: I notice that the contact address since June is "c/o AAtsto Lindfors & Co Oy" who are a firm of lawyers in Helsinki. This would lend weight to the liquidation statement. One more thing.. I do have a potential COI with the article so I will limit my contributions to the talk page. Shritwod (talk) 09:29, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Shritwod. I searched a little more, and found that this page on the Finnish business information system DOES state that WOT became TOW. It says that WOT Services Ltd was registered from 9/7/2009 to 02/18/2016. WOT became TOW Software Ltd as of 02/18/2016. Regarding the part about liquidation, I remain confused. WOT (now TOW) is a privately-held company, so its stock does not publicly trade on any exchange. Given that, I don't know what else liquidated could mean other than not being in business any longer. (I noticed that the contact address was AAtsto Lindfors too, but that doesn't tell us much. They are a well-known legal firm in Finland, but there could be many reasons why they are listed as the contact for WOT.) Some of the old WOT blog posts gave the physical address of WOT, but I will wait until there is more information disclosed by the company itself. Michael Widenius was an investor, and member of the board of directors of WOT as of February 2009, but his VC firm, OpenOcean now lists WOT as a FORMER portfolio company. Esa Suurio was the CEO of WOT until November 2009, and his company, Against Intuition, still links to the MyWOT landing page. Someone owns and operates WOT, but we don't seem to be able to find out who it is! I remember Sami, who founded WOT, and I know who he is, and that he is credible, however, he and Timo haven't been associated with WOT since 2014. I am not going to pursue this further, not until there is media coverage or WOT publishes a press release.--FeralOink (talk) 11:16, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

We're on the borders of Original Research here, aren't we? But I think we have a pretty good source to say that the owner is TOW Software Oy, if we feel it is appropriate. Shritwod (talk) 14:20, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

location of the privacy case

Hey, I think the privacy should be in very beginning, maybe first or second sentence. Not to force people to read everything to know this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.154.23.73 (talk) 11:02, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Wrong type definition

According to the recent revelations on NDR, this should be type labelled as 'Spyware' and not 'Internet security'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.198.253.190 (talk) 14:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Updated version available

It looks like WOT has been restored on the Chrome Web Store as of v3.2.0 on Dec. 19, 2016. So perhaps the spyware vs. security thing is being resolved. It's still not available for FireFox though. Anyone have more of an update? Indefensible (talk) 04:52, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

WOT have a statement available here - so yes, an updated version available for Chrome but not for anything else. Interesting also that it mentions a strategic change of direction, someone might want to update the article. Shritwod (talk) 09:57, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Massive vandalism by users claiming WOT Services went out of business

The message boards are active, the company has submitted new versions of the addon, and the scorecards are being redesigned. The company has not shut down, repeatedly publishing such things could be libelous. -185.9.19.107 (talk) 07:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

The vandals have gotten very clever, they are making edits to leave the lead alone but are replacing "are" with "was" in the bottom. -213.152.162.99 (talk) 18:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

That is simply untrue. Withdraw it, or take it to ANI, and stop edit-warring whichever way. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Do you have proof from a reputable source the company has gone out of business? I'm logged into the site right now. -213.152.162.99 (talk) 19:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Where in the article does it say that they have gone out of business? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:59, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Some edits use "was" for everything, while recent edits leave "are" in the lead but replace the rest of the article with "was" -213.152.162.99 (talk) 20:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Again, where in the article does it say that they have gone out of business? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

How is a company "was" unless it doesn't exist anymore? -213.152.162.99 (talk) 20:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Where in the article does it say "was"? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:34, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue whether they are in business or not, but that opening section needs to be sourced. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

• • It is the article lead, and all the statements within it are already sourced in the article. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

• Let's edit the Facebook article "Facebook was a social networking company" - Go find proof that Facebook still exists. What do the atheists always say, "the burden of proof is on the one who makes the assertion" -20:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

So why is the article using the past tense to describe the current state of the company? And products currently being offered? That's bizarre, and I'm sure it's not what the manual of style recommends.

Similarly, it seems to me that statements that the company recalled their app, should be followed by statements indicating that they reinstated it shortly afterwards. Or they should say clarify "temporarily".

As a completely involved uninvolved editor, to me it sure looks like two established editors are fighting to maintain a hatchet job not supported by its sources, while an IP is trying to fix it. ApLundell (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Where in the article is it using the past tense to refer to the company?

What are these unsourced claims that you are complaining of? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I came here from WP:ANI after seeing claims of vandalism. What I am seeing here is not vandalism, but instead edit warring between four editors with regards to a content dispute. I also see the history. On May 23, about ~2 weeks ago, the editor User:Ocdcntx edited the article to make the claims that exist in this revision that is being fought over: Namely that WOT is discontinued, as well as using the past tense vs present tense. I believe that is the crux of what this dispute is over. I believe it is plainly obvious that Web Of Trust (the addon they are referring to) is not discontinued, but instead is being offered on nearly every browser. I looked for Internet Explorer, Chrome, Firefox, and Opera, and even Safari, and I see addons for all of those browsers. So the claim that WOT is "discontinued" is simply patently false. Now, they -were- temporarily removed from I believe the Mozilla store and perhaps another store, and that should be mentioned, but right now, the article is attempting to say that the entirety of WOT is discontinued, which again, is false. We should not be using past tense throughout the article as if the addon no longer exists. There also appear to be neutral point of view issues with regards to the fact of WOT's actions. Namely in the lead and in another place. Ironically, WOT billed itself as a trustworthy website reputation and review service and purported to provide crowdsourced reviews and other data regarding whether web sites other than itself were trustworthy in respecting user privacy and security. & Although it was engaged in a systematic massive invasion into the privacy of its users, WOT consistently rated its own site as trustworthy. need to be reworded, provided a source, or removed. Tutelary (talk) 21:12, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

In the original edit by "Ocdcntx" the article was completely rewritten. You and ScrapIronIV cleverly had a second edit which left the lead alone but changed the rest of the article to past tense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.152.161.133 (talk) 21:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

(After edit conflict with Tutelary and 213.152.)

Why are editors fighting to keep the "WOT services" and "The rating tool" sections in the past tense? So far as I can see, they're describing products and services currently being offered. If that's the case those sections should be written in the present tense.

(In fact, the claim that the firefox plugin has been removed is sourced to a page where you can currently download that plugin!)

ApLundell (talk) 21:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I suggest we revert to this revision before all of the past tense stuff was applied, as well the claim that it was discontinued. This revision is not perfect. It is still outdated with respect to current operation, and still says that the browser addon was "removed from distribution". Which is true, but then we need to add the fact that WOT reuploaded versions complying with the addon stores' rules. Perhaps WOT was still reuploading the addons to the respective browser's addon stores even on March 2017, or editors didn't bother to update the article. Tutelary (talk) 21:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I do agree with reverting to this point, this edit war appears to have a possible agenda to it and as the page stands now it appears quite POV. That said, it would be good to add that the Firefox add-on is back in the Mozilla Add-ons directory - https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/wot-safe-browsing-tool/ - though it is a legacy, non-e10s compatible add-on thus disabling the Firefox multiprocess feature. BFeely (talk) 22:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

"the claim that the firefox plugin has been removed" is correct and needs to stay. The crux of this whole article is that WOT were thrown out of the browser community for breaching user privacy. The fact they've been allowed back in the last few weeks doesn't change this history, even though the mighty-morphing edit-warring IPs wish to hide that.

As I mentioned just above, Mozilla has actually reinstated the Firefox add-on, so that claim is now outdated. I even provided the official Mozilla download link where it once again can be installed on Firefox. BFeely (talk) 01:39, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

"the claim that the firefox plugin has been removed" is not correct and needs to be edited. Mozilla said that it was reinstated on February 6, 2017. That isn't the past few weeks, as it is now June 11, 2017.--FeralOink (talk) 21:02, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

The article might be slightly out of date, and needs updating to show the moat recent developments. But none of that is an excuse to whitewash this by removing what did happen.

As to the IP's incessant whining and claims of "vandalism", then that would carry more weight if the article actually said the company has gone out of business. It doesn't say that. It didn't say that, although there was a past tense in there that shouldn't have been - which I was accused of "CLEVER VANDALISM" for removing. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:25, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with you that the history of WOT should stay, especially the moment in their history about the removal of the Firefox addon. However, I am in vehement opposition of the current status of the article. It's a bit weird to read, and not NPOV as I was saying above. Would you mind if I reverted to this revision ? Right now, the past tense of the article is incorrect. If you don't disagree with me reverting to that revision, then I will also add in content regarding their current status, as well as removing the non-NPOV bits. Tutelary (talk) 23:25, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

So go back to a version that drops mention of their privacy breaches from the lead, and that includes the sentence, "To generate revenue, WOT licenses the use of its reputation database to other businesses." when it turns out that WOT couldn't generate enough revenue from doing that and so started selling the browsing history data of their own clients instead.

Unsurprisingly, no. I wouldn't support such a change! Andy Dingley (talk) 23:47, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Would you support a version that retains the mention of privacy problems in the lead, and not the sentence about revenue, but otherwise is the version the IP editor wants? ApLundell (talk) 00:11, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

(Note : I made a slightly embarrassing typo above. I described myself as an "involved editor". I meant to say "uninvolved". Sorry for the confusion. The truth is I learned about this conflict from the ANI page. I had previously not even heard of the company in question. ApLundell (talk) 22:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC))

If you were to compare the diffs of that revision vs the current version, then the lead is pretty much reworded to a point where it doesn't make such sense. The previous lead sentence had much more clarity. Right now, you get into the controversy without even explaining what the addon is. s a website reputation and review service that provides information about whether it considers a website to be trustworthy... vs is a browser add-on and web site. which does not serve the reading appropriately in explaining what the addon is. You can't explain a controversy about something without explaining what the definition is, first. Right now, after reviewing the sources that the article currently cites, the current version also has original research in the form of postulating that they were removed from all addon stores involuntarily, when it was only proven that Mozilla removed them involuntarily, whereas they normally withdrew from the others until they edited the addon. So here is my proposed "Lead" so to speak:

MyWOT/WOT (Web of Trust) is a website reputation and review service that also offers browser addons. After being found to have breached the privacy rules and guidelines set by several browsers, the browser add-on was involuntarily removed from Mozilla Firefox, and voluntarily removed from other browsers' addons stores. Before its removal, WOT secretly collected and disseminated personal information about its users. WOT billed itself as a trustworthy website reputation and review service and purported to provide crowdsourced reviews and other data regarding whether web sites other than itself were trustworthy in respecting user privacy and security. The ratings were presented primarily through WOT's browser add-in. WOT aggregated crowdsourced website reputation information and personal user details and sold or licensed this information to other unidentified businesses and entities as Data monetization. WOT would eventually reappear on all major browsers' addon stores.

Users were encouraged to download the browser add-on that automatically tracked the users browsing while also checking the reputation rating of every website visited. Users could also search a website's reputation on the WOT website. A search feature allowed users to do a search regarding the reputation and safety of any web address by typing the address into a search bar on the WOT website. Each web address was rated and assigned a score under two separate metrics – trustworthiness and child safety. User reviews were also presented underneath the scorecard for each website, expressing each user's own reason(s) for trusting or not trusting a given site. Website owners were also presented with the opportunity to claim their site, which gave them the opportunity to communicate with their website's users. Site owners could request a review of their site's reputation score or add a custom description of their site to the scorecard.

The past tense of the article would be reverted to present tense, as they have not discontinued their addon/service and it doesn't make sense to describe it as past tense. Does this sound good? I don't want to euphemize their history, of course, but in its current revision, this article has issues. Note I'm not just asking for one user's thoughts, I want to make a consensus so there's no more edit wars. Tutelary (talk) 00:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

That lead's fine by me. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I have no issues with that updated lede. Scr★pIron^IV 13:58, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

• Changes I made the changes I outlined in this diff. Namely, editing the lead to be more clear and the changing of present tense to past tense where applicable. Tutelary (talk) 23:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

• • That new lede used "addon store" and "addons store" inconsistently and misused "would"; I corrected those. Also, we need a reference in the body for its having been reuploaded; I have tagged that sentence. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I will try to address that. I might also re-write the lead of the article, to indicate what is past versus tense for the status of the browser add-on in Mozilla Firefox webstore. (I thought it was restored by Mozilla, but need to double check.) I got called a "moron" and a "know nothing" when I edited this article last year, so I don't want to get involved in any of that again.--FeralOink (talk) 20:52, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

213.152 hasn't returned, but the article no longer implies that WOT is out of business or has otherwise stopped providing it's software and services, so it seems to me like the concerns he raised have been satisfied. ApLundell (talk) 14:35, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

• I removed a portion of one sentence today, see the article page history. I removed the part about the company being liquidated. The liquidated statement was wikilinked to liquidation which the lead states is only applicable to US and UK law. We don't know what it means in Finland. The liquidation article describes how there are many possible usages of the term in various legal jurisdictions. I kept the link to the Finnish company registry, so that readers can look for themselves if they wish. Also, as additional justification for not including the liquidated term, I see that the Finnish tax registry updated its records on 9 June 2017, stating that TOW had no tax debt as a registered company. Registered companies are not out of business. It would be helpful if WOT would clarify its status as a going concern so we could stop having these discussions (see the extended discussion about this matter last year on the talk page) but there's nothing I can do about that.--FeralOink (talk) 20:44, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced

The following is unsourced and was moved here per WP:PRESERVE. Per WP:BURDEN please do not restore without finding independent, reliable sources, checking the content against them, and citing them, and ensuring that this content has appropriate WP:WEIGHT in the article overall.

WOT services

Other services include "Filter by WOT", a customizable content filtering tool that allows users to choose what kind of web content they want to see. The service is available for Google Chrome as a free add-on. Apart from allowing users to control which sites, domains, or pages they want to display, Filter by WOT also has a keyword scanner that automatically blocks any page that a given keyword appears on.

WOT Mobile is a free app on the Google Play Store that notifies users when they browse unsafe websites on their mobile devices. The WOT Mobile application works on both the Chrome browser and users' native mobile browsers. WOT Mobile utilizes user reputation ratings to display warning notifications to users when they are about to browse websites with poor user ratings.

WOT Services also offers its original browser add-on for enterprise use. This allows companies to install the WOT add-on to employees' computers for free after each company's details are registered on the WOT website.

The MyWOT website has a community section with a forum, a blog and a Wiki. The forum is used for community members to discuss website ratings, security, and online safety. The blog is updated regularly with information for readers about browsing safely on the web.

The rating tool

According to company information, WOT software computes the measure of trust the rating users have in websites, combined with data from, among others, Google Safe Browsing. The WOT browser add-on is available for all major operating systems and browsers. To view or submit ratings, no subscription is required. To be able to write comments on score cards and in the forum, one needs to be registered.

The add-on sends user ratings to the WOT site, and it determines how the computed results are displayed, depending on user's settings. For instance, when visiting a poorly-rated site, a warning screen may pop up, or only a red icon in the user's browser toolbar is shown. Color-coded icons are also shown next to external links on the pages of leading search engines, on email services, and on social network sites.

Ratings are cast by secret ballot. They can be given in the broad categories of "trustworthiness" and "child safety". To specify at least one reason for a rating is mandatory, via multiple choice in the rating interface. The user rating system is meritocratic; the weight of a rating is algorithmically calculated for each user individually.

-- Jytdog (talk) 00:58, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Browser restoration

We need independent sourcing for restoration of services in various browsers. I looked and didn't find any yet... Jytdog (talk) 00:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)