Talk:Forcepoint

Remark

...but the Websense robots themselves disregard any robot.txt files and META TAGS that are supposed to exclude robots. 93.135.98.31 (talk) 12:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC) Kriwis

Article under attack by Websense illegal astroturfing campaign censoring criticism, the word "censor" or "filter" and disparaging Amnesty International

This article has been subject to a longterm Websense illegal astroturfing campaign ([1]) spanning years, please see here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Websense,_Inc.

If anyone else finds suspicious editing in this article's history, please report it to Wikipedia's neighbourhood WP:PAIDWATCH

When dissenting statements are removed but the Wikipedia:Wikipuffery-like stuff is left in, with WP:weasel words like "security gateway software" (as opposed to web filtering) in the article becomes biased, as WP:NPOV is meant to be that all sides are meant to be represented, not that no criticism is allowed - as Enric Naval (talk · contribs) above pointed out a couple of posts up

More issues arise when most of this stuff seems to have been all been originally added by the company themselves against every rule Wikipedia has on Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest using numerous WP:sockpuppets, with their main account banned, it's worth checking out Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Websense, Inc.. :/ --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 10:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Since you reverted problematic content back into the article, I'll assume that you didn't read the reply at my talkpage, so it's copied here for convenience:

You have ensured that one side is already lavishly represented. Does NPOV really require us to point out that software is used at guantanamo bay? Ooh, it must be evil, it's used at guantanamo bay! And then there's the nonsense about definitions of "security" and "censorship", and the huge controversy section (the lede is practically all "controversy" content, even after I removed the worst of the ranting). Who added that content? You can't blame pro-websense sockpuppets/meatpuppets for that. Neutrality does not mean giving the subject a repeated kicking.

bobrayner (talk) 10:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Your comment that "it must be evil, it's used at guantanamo bay!" is POV, personally I think Guantanamo Bay is a difficult answer to a difficult problem when the worst people often don't wear uniforms - Precisely because it's a picture published by the governemnt it's more impartial than using any commercial material - a lot of Wikipedia articles do this, because so much of the stuff from US government is freely released as public domain

The idea of censoring content being a "security" issue is a red herring, there is no security issue in the vast majority of things Websense allows blocking of (I know what security means), by and large it is used for enforcing a particular dogmatic view (for example its use in Bible Belt public libraries and education systems to censor information giving advice about conflicting political views, religions, sexual health, etc, and then you have its use in countries like China and Yemen to do the similar (something WebSense seems quite keen to hide from their article). Granted, it does provide security services on the side, but that is not its main business and the company itself is named after their most popular Websense internet censorship software for a reason. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 10:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted the changes. While astroturfing may be a problem, it seems we need to proceed a bit more carefully than changing the internet security terms to web censorship, primarily on the back of peacefire.org - which isn't the most neutral of sources. I think you may have a point about the article as a whole, but the article also isn't exactly avoiding negative claims, so I think we will need to proceed carefully so as to avoid going too far in the other direction. - Bilby (talk) 11:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll say that "computer security" is a very weasel label for this software. It doesn't secure anything, it merely prevents people from visiting certain websites at the internet. The neutral name is "Content-control software", I think.

Guantanamo has no secondary sources, only an article at an internal magazine from the base. If it has neutrality problems, just get rid of it. This the controversy section, and there is no source saying that its use at Guantanamo is controvesial. There should be screenshoots of websense making controversial blocks, hosted in more-or-less reliable secondary sources.

That it's sometimes called "censorware" by detractors should be in the controversy section.

The "Internet Censorship" bit is sourced to a primary source 44 U.S.C. § 3542(b)(1), needs to be backed by a secondary source or removed as WP:OR. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's exactly what I'm getting at I know a thing or two about security and "Websense" is not trying to sell security, it's being used as a euphemism in this case which is against the weasel words policy Stopping people reading about things they want to is not "protecting" them, it's internet censorship by the very definition, effectively providing an insitutionalised form of point of view enforcement for whoever runs the system, as per it's use in Stasi-like police states like China, Yemen and in education systems where it's largely left up to individual computer administrators to run the system and decide what is filtered... Bilby, your userpage states "I'm a lecturer in Information Systems"? o_O --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 11:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The neutral (and more accurate name, and more descriptive) is "content-control software" or "web filtering", or combinations of it. Wikipedia has chosen to group everything under the first name for whatever the reason. You can see the name on PCMag[2] or you can search google books for several examples of this labelling[3]. (Being a webmaster of a forum website for a few years makes you a quotable expert on security??? Because publish your name via a reliable publisher, or make yourself a name on the security industry, reputation checkeable in secondary sources, please, and then we can discuss it.) --Enric Naval (talk) 11:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• (ec) Wikipedia Review is about security or is significant to the security industry in some way? That's news to me; I never covered it in the CISSP or CISM or CEH exams &c nor discussed it with any of my clients, and have only ever encountered it as part of wikidrama. Which brings us back to spurious claims of censorship...
• Any argument that content filtering is not part of CIA is difficult to take seriously. No doubt some people are frustrated that their favourite webpages are blocked at school or at the library, but that's no excuse for wallpapering "censorship" all over the article, to the extent of removing more neutral terms. Websense is genuinely used as a security tool by security teams in many organisations.
• I'm pretty disappointed that opposition to the rabidly POV content is labelled as "illegal astroturfing campaign censoring criticism". Smearing people who disagree with you is a Bad Thing. Since the editors now disagreeing with MSK's stance are not censors or part of an illegal astroturfing campaign, would MSK like to change the section heading to something a little more AGF? bobrayner (talk) 12:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 1) @Enric, Hey hey, I was agreeing with you, why the confrontational stuff with "???"s? I am not claiming to be an expert of anything, if you read more about WR you'd know it's been involved in uncovering a lot of dodgy Wikipedia activities before If are claiming Wikipedia Review is not reliable (by the same way no journalistic source ever recognised Wikileaks as reliable — that's a joke :p ;)) and you want a reliable source, Seth Finklestein from The Register has wrote some good stuff on the subject, some of it on Wikipedia itself: [4][5][6][7][8][9] {[smiley}}

Basically it looks like the term on Wikipedia has got changed "content control" because of the overwhelming pressure from sockpuppets/meatpuppets of related companies, whilst you had people like him standing on the sidelines unable to edit because they are trying to be ethical and avoid editing on articles that they have a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest over --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)}

@bob: Since you are claiming certifications and having "clients" to try back up your viewpoint, but is that your real name or a pseudonym? Otherwise we have no way to know if you are not another Essjay, per Enric's points to me - there's assuming good faith, but it's not a suicide pact to believe anything. "Any argument that content filtering is not part of CIA is difficult to take seriously"... I believe you meant "Any argument that content IS part of the CIA is difficult to take seriously"? Because if so, I would totally agree. I never even suggested that so far as I know, that just seems to be a personal attack, attacking the contributor than the argument?

The fact is no one outside the security industry would classify internet censorship software such as Websense "security", and well, a lot of people IN the security industry too - I'm pretty sure you would be laughed out of most serious neutral conferences that aren't just corporate jollyfests if you tried to claim that :p

On the subject of WP:AGF and the POV pushing, again, this article has been subject to a longterm Websense illegal astroturfing campaign ([10]) spanning years: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Websense,_Inc. - AGF is not meant to be a suicide pact for Wikipedia Obviously, since you claim to be part of the security industry, you have a substantial Wikipedia:Conflict of interest in promoting the purchase of software that needs continual maintenance such as this, is that not true? --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 12:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I prefer just "filtering software", as the seems to be the major role, but there is something to be said for content control software. Censorship may be appropriate, but I'd like good sources to support that, partially because the software is applied more widely. At any rate, my main issue is that we're going to need good sources to develop the article in order to keep it from moving too far to either side - and given the position of Websense in the market, there are a lot of good sources around. - Bilby (talk) 12:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• CIA stands for Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability. MSK, I assumed that you had at least a rudimentary knowledge of IT security, because you said "I know a thing or two about security"; if my use of a common industry term caused any confusion, then the best way to avoid confusion in future is to avoid claiming competence when you don't even understand the basic tenets of a topic - no matter how strongly you feel about it. Still, thanks for assuming that something you didn't understand was a personal attack.
• This is not the first time that you've assumed that industry expertise equates to conflict of interest; it is false and harmful, and should stop now. Pretending that I might have an interest in encouraging Websense sales is just more ad hominem sniping.
• People aren't essjay just because they disagree with you. Your ongoing sniping and assumptions of bad faith really aren't going to bring consensus any closer or win people over to your point of view. However, it is absurdly hypocritical to complain that an editor using a real name is pseudonymous, whilst hiding behind an actual pseudonym yourself.
• Returning to the article content, I've discovered more misuse of sources; using them to support statements which don't fit what the source actually says. That really ought to be stopped too. bobrayner (talk) 12:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• And now, after I fixed some other problems, yet another revert - knowingly restoring content to the article which misrepresents sources, and that's even before we get to the POV problem. MSK, you're in a hole; let go of the shovel. bobrayner (talk) 13:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

(too many replies to indent anymore)

(edit conflict × 1)

If you want to say you meant that now, I'll assume good faith, re-reading it makes it seem like you were trying to mean that. It just seemed odd so soon after your accusation of "point out that software is used at guantanamo bay? Ooh, it must be evil, it's used at guantanamo bay!" (sic)

If you read my reply before to Enric, you would know why I raised the question of your pseudonym, since I was previously accused of it. You can't have it both ways, accusing me of making claims whilst making them yourself

You claim to be part of the "security" industry, which is widely regarded to be more akin to a protection racket (Antisec Movement), so yes, of course you have an interest in promoting software such as these, if I said otherwise I would be denying what the security industry is about...

(RE the edit conflict whilst I was replying here): Please stop Wikipedia:edit warring whilst a discussion is in place, I've told you twice now in the edit summaries that you need to take a look at WP:BRD, it's not "post, go revert, post, go revert" ... --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 13:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I've changed the description to "networking software" -- this is intended as a placeholder until consensus can be achieved on final wording. If you're unable to come to consensus please consider WP:RFC or WP:DRN et. al. Nobody Ent 14:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

@Mistress Selina. The "???" was in reference to your [[Wikipedia Review|I know a thing or two about security]][11]. My reply tries to drive the point that you need to cite sources or authors that are considered reliable for the computer security topic.

I cited such sources above (PCMag and assorted books. You didn't cite any source for this software being usually categorized as "internet censorship software" in reliable sources. You don't cite any secondary source for the Guantanamo usage being notable or relevant to understanding the article's topic. You are inserting lengthy original research in the first sentence of the lead about the labelling of its main product. You are moving into the lead a couple of detailed controversies of how their software is used by some of their clients. You are unbalancing the article away from neutrality, towards full-blown criticism.

You called people's attention about certain problems in the article. Good. Then you started making not-neutral edits, and edit-warring to keep them. Bad. You are also misunderstanding WP:BRD: you were bold[12], someone else reverted, now you are supposed to discuss, and the discussion includes the providing of sources that support your changes. Could you please voluntarily step away from the article, very far away, really far away, maybe remove it from your watchlist, and let other people make edits based on secondary reliable sources, and let them fix the lead so it's in accordance with WP:LEAD? --Enric Naval (talk) 15:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe that was her intent [13] Nobody Ent 16:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not meant to be "what you can get away with" whilst paying lipservice to the idea behind the rules, the ones that aren't fixed are just as important... The discussion should have been here in the first place not turned into an edit war...

I was not "bold and reverted", I was reverting to a previous version - and then "bobrayner" started writing his own edits in, and I reverted him and tried to start discussion - then he reverted me, then in the discussion kept reverting too in some kind of bizarre "post, revert, post, revert" interpretation...

You want a source for internet censorship or censorware, there are tonnes, honestly no one outside people in the "security" industry uses euphenisms like "content-control" to refer to programs that censor the internet... That's not an allegation, that's common sense:

1. WebSENSE Examined, Peacefire — "The first published report criticizing WebSENSE came from the Censorware Project in June 1998: Protecting Judges from Liza Minelli: The WebSENSE Censorware at Work"
2. Websense censors Cory's podcasts, Cory Doctorow, Boingboing — "Websense, an Internet censorship company that I've criticized here, has apparently decided to punish me"
3. More on Internet Censorship in Libraries: ACLU vs. Salem Public Library, Jillian York, Electronic Frontier Foundation (this one is not primarily about Websense, but about similar censor-by-selected-ideological-categories-software called Netsweeper and mentions Websense as being another example of it)
4. wikiHow:Bypass-Websense, WikiHow — "A new bypasser that should work with most censorship systems, for now."
5. a look at China's increasing ability to control what its citizens can see and read online, Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) — "China has the most extensive Internet censorship in the world [..]Cisco Systems, Microsoft, Nortel Networks, Sun Microsystems, and Websense -- have provided important technologies that help the Chinese government censor the Web"
6. Political Repression 2.0, Evgeny Morozov, The New York Times — "A March report by OpenNet Initiative, an academic group that monitors Internet censorship, revealed that Netsweeper, based in Canada, together with the American companies Websense and McAfee (now owned by Intel), have developed programs to meet most of the censorship needs of governments in the Middle East and North Africa — in Websense’s case, despite promises not to supply its technology to repressive governments."

--Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 17:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Selina, you were reverting to a version that you wrote yourself a couple of weeks ago, over 20 different edits. That's when you were bold. The version you were reverting back to is very similar to what you wrote[14].

Those are sources for clients of the company using the program for internet censorship. For the classification of the actual software we should use sources reliable in the classification of software, like software magazines and software books. Also, a web filtering tool has more uses apart from censoring internet. For example, preventing your workers from browsing time-wasting websites at the workplace. Your edit blurred the difference between the tool itself and the usages of the tool.

Now, are you going to stay away from the article while I try to fix it with reliable sources, like you appear to say in User_talk:Mistress_Selina_Kyle#Websense? --Enric Naval (talk) 21:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The edits made were by the self-admitted marketing manager of the company and associates, that was cleaning up wp:Conflict of Interest vandalism/sockpuppetry per the rules, there was no new change, nothing "bold"... It was "bobrayner" that came and started revertin in support of the malicious sockpuppetry, after I posted about it on WP:PAIDWATCH — I noticed today that though they are not members, both he and Bilby seem to have came from a group supporting malicious paid editing which is against all policy...

The use for which it is used is POV whether it's justified or not, the word censorship is not a POV term but one used historically and in paper dictionaries to describe suppressing material:

censor

Pronunciation: /ˈsɛnsə/ noun

1 an official who examines books, films, news, etc. that are about to be published and suppresses any parts that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security: the report was approved by the military censors the movie has been given an adults-only rating by film censors

Psychoanalysis an aspect of the superego which is said to prevent certain ideas and memories from emerging into consciousness. [from a mistranslation of German Zensur 'censorship', coined by Freud]

2 (in ancient Rome) either of two magistrates who held censuses and supervised public morals.

verb
[with object]

examine (a book, film, etc.) officially and suppress unacceptable parts of it: the report had been censored ‘in the national interest’ the letters she received were censored

Derivatives
censorial
Pronunciation: /-ˈsɔːrɪəl/

adjective
censorship

Origin:

mid 16th century (in censor (sense 2 of the noun)): from Latin, from censere 'assess

censor/censorship, Oxford English Dictionary

Those sources are all valid sources per WP:V/WP:RS, there is no "magazines and books" rule, because Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 20:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Those sources are all advocacy sources from advocacy groups, they are reliable for sourcing the opinion from advocacy groups, not for making statements of fact in "wikipedia voice". For the neutral classification of the software, you want to look at reliable sources on computer security and at sources that classify and review software. Those sources classify it Content-control software / web filtering. I made a more accurate book search that includes the term "internet censorship"[15], and I still get similar results. Then I forced that the books included the sentence "internet censorship", and I only got 4 hits,[16] a minority compared to all the other books that give it a different label. So, a minority view, so it should be given less space in the article (per WP:FRINGE). --Enric Naval (talk) 22:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Robots.text

In the lead, the article stated:

It has also come under controversy for ignoring the robots.txt standard to crawl websites, removing the option for website owners to opt out of censorship.[17]

The source for this appears to be a blog post. As it isn't mentioned elsewhere in the article, is only sourced to a blog post, and there is no evidence that this is regarded as particularly controversial (and I'd find it surprising if it was), I've removed it. - Bilby (talk) 03:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Completely biased. Needs to be more objectionable.

The entire summary of company has negative tone. I have talked directly with executives and analyst relations, with customer survey information backing up our research.

1. Websense is currently the market leader (fact due to revenue/total market revenue).
2. Websense has partnered with Facebook in order to combat malicious content (fact, and clearly a new strategic way of lessening operating expenditures for other organizations (less on-premise costs for network, endpoint, and data security appliances/software).
3. As far as the civil liberty issue: The idea that Websense has come under criticism for supporting 'enemies of the Internet' is completely opinionated. It is, afterall, a business - No different from Apple on their iPhones being manufactured in a strict government. Asia is the most heavily restricted continent. Websense is simply adhering to government regulations, worldwide. They did object to the SOPA and PIPA Acts, because of the faulty written procedures. But the fact that Websense is being used by these other countries does not qualify them as supporters of Internet censorship.

More to follow soon... — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProtossWarrior (talk • contribs) 03:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Tagging

I regard to tagging this article, is there any solid evidence that there editors working on this article were paid to do so, and is there any evidence that the current version or the article has problems due to that editing? I'm a bit concerned about accusing a company of paying people to edit the article, as the tag at the top does, without some evidence that such occured. The only thing I've seen to date are two sockpuppet investigations, neither of which found sockpuppetry, and no evidence that anyone was paid to edit the article beyond that of a normal COI editor. (I note that it was edited by User:Websense, Inc., who can be safely assumed to have a COI, but not necessarily to have been acting as a paid advocate per se - the distinction being somewhat unclear anyway - but who also hasn't been shown to have edited since being blocked almost 12 months ago). - Bilby (talk) 06:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there was solid evidence: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Websense, Inc. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 06:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

You are aware that the investigation found that the users (the only three that weren't stale) were unlikely to be related? Not that there was proof of sockpuppetry? - Bilby (talk) 06:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:MEATPUPPET. Surprisingly, there's an abundence of unique people in large organisations. :p --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 07:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Again, though, what I'm looking for is anything solid to show that there really was a problem with this article, such that the tagging is warranted. I'm aware that you believe that there was paid editing and COI edits that have skewed the article, but is there anything to show that editors were paid, or that the current article is skewed as a result of COI editors? The latter I can see happening, but the former is going to be much harder to show. - Bilby (talk) 08:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

A few comments about this article

This article appears to have become a battleground over the politics of internet censorship. It struck me after reading it for the first time how little it says about the software and its workings, instead focusing on the issues and concerns arising from usage by certain customers. If Websense were not on the market, then some other company would be filling this gap in the market, and the issues would be no different; including the greater debate in this product article is not unlike using the Gatsometer article for speed limit enforcement, or the Smith & Wesson article as a platform to discuss the politics of gun control.

Ironically, the COI tag at the top of the article focuses on only one side of the POV in the article - for example, the picture of Guantanamo Bay appears to be a POV attempt to create negative connotations, and it's very sucessful in this respect.

My recommendation is to use this article to describe how the software works, and to move the bulk of the debate into articles like internet censorship, content-control software, data loss prevention software, insider trading etc where they belong. Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

HELLO AGAIN. PLEASE READ WP:WIKIHOUNDING. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 10:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Is there hounding going on? Could somebody explain? I'd appreciate some diffs, because I haven't seen evidence of it yet. bobrayner (talk) 10:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the article has a feeling of an internet censorship battleground. The websense article should focus on the company and its main products. The more generic controversy about regime X censoring website Y should go in internet censorship. I'm going to remove some of this stuff.--Karl.brown (talk) 14:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I have an open request for admin intervention here, so will step back from the article until that's resolved; please don't let that stop you though. Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Resolved - I've also requested unprotection of the article. Let's get on with cleaning this up - but please help to keep the article tight with reliable refs for any content additions. Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

That Guantanamo picture

As I already posted: Guantanamo has no secondary sources, only an article at an internal magazine from the base. If it has neutrality problems, just get rid of it. This the controversy section, and there is no source saying that its use at Guantanamo is controvesial. There should be screenshoots of websense making controversial blocks, hosted in more-or-less reliable secondary sources. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

P.D.: because, you know, it's not like they let Guantanamo prisoners browse the internet.

P.D.D.: And it's not the only military base where Websense is used (p. ex. Air Force[18], Afganistan [19], Marine Corps[20], "more than 100 military facilities in the United States and abroad"[21]). --Enric Naval (talk) 09:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Well said. Does that mean that there's consensus to restore the Websense screenshot that was part of the "vandalism" that was recently reverted? Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

It's in a different section, and serves a different purpose (illustrate a category blocking) (and, no, for non-controversial screenshots of normal functioning you don't need a source, for example the screenshots in MS_Paint, but a sourced screenshot is still better). No idea why it was removed, I have restored it. For the "controversy" section we should have a screenshot of a controversial blocking, sourced to something that explains why it's controversial. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I was unable to find a free image of a controversial block - will keep looking. Would you care to comment on the other changes that were reverted in that edit? Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the other changes, I'll look them this week.

Just commenting that articles shouldn't have "controversy" sections, the negative stuff should appear in the relevant places along the positive stuff that comments on the same topics (i.e. all "blocking software"-related stuff should be grouped together, both good things and bad things).

It's not likely to find free images for some of the controversial issues, just use Template:Non-free_software_screenshot. Finkelstein has a list of screenshots near the end of his page [22], personally I would choose the "Arizona Council on Compulsive Gambling" block (easiest to explain and understand, carries less baggage from associations from other stuff, etc.) --Enric Naval (talk) 11:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Assistance Requested, Updating the Websense Wikipedia Page

Hello Wiki community,
I’m on the public relations team for Websense. I’m writing you today to ask for your further assistance in organizing and clarifying the Websense Wikipedia page.

Recently there was a bit of an edit war between two users that dramatically changed the content of the page. As far as we are aware neither of those participants works for or is affiliated with Websense. The problem with the current content is that it does not accurately reflect our business. I’d like your feedback on how to correct factual errors or omissions. It is not our intent to make the entry a marketing piece, nor shy away from documented controversy. We’d like to supply omitted content and correct factual errors. We would like to work within this talk page to better clean up the page under Wikipedia guidelines. Based on the information below, would someone be willing to review the linked materials and update our business section to include our business category and description to reflect this background?

There are two issues that might be helpful background for you:

1. The business that Websense is in has evolved over the years. Phase one was “web filtering” or blocking access to certain sites. Put simply, for most customers that was “porn filtering”. Customers bought to stay compliant with HR rules and laws about respectful work environments. Phase two was about productivity. Companies bought advanced filtering to keep employees from wasting all day doing things like online gambling or social media. They could be blocked completely, allocated quote time, or set to certain hours (like lunch break). The current emphasis is all about security. All of those data breaches you read about? They usually start with targeted emails, get people to an infected website, download malicious code, and start sending confidential data out, usually for profit. Websense is all about keeping that whole chain (email security, web security, mobile security, data loss prevention) from occurring.

For further validation of our shift to email, web, mobile, and data security provider, please see

• Our Websense Security Labs blog - http://community.websense.com/blogs/securitylabs/
• http://www.fastcompany.com/1788348/websense-facebook-social-media-spam-10-18-11
• http://www.fastcompany.com/1820962/enterprise-mobile-security

2. There are people who equate categorization and customer filtering with censorship and want to brand Websense as a censorship company. Be clear about this: we categorize sites and content (that’s porn, that’s gambling, that’s shopping, that’s hate speech, that’s religious, that’s sports, etc.-there are over 90 categories), and our customers choose what to block, allow, or limit. Companies have an absolute right—and sometimes even a legal responsibility—to block certain content. That is not censorship. And we work diligently to prevent misuse of our technology. For example, we worked with the ACLU to help schools realize that students should not be blocked from LGBT sites. And we will not sell to governments that would use our products for censorship (we have a record of remotely disabling misused product and for not bidding for or accepting business meant for censorship).

• http://community.websense.com/blogs/websense-insights/archive/2012/03/02/say-no-to-government-censorship-of-the-internet-in-pakistan.aspx?cmpid=pr
• http://community.websense.com/blogs/websense-insights/archive/2011/11/01/websense-statement-on-improper-use-of-technology-for-suppression-of-rights-and-in-violation-of-trade-sanctions.aspx?cmpid=pr
• http://community.websense.com/blogs/websense-features/archive/2009/08/17/websense-issues-statement-on-use-of-its-url-filtering-technology-by-isps-in-yemen.aspx?cmpid=pr
• http://community.websense.com/blogs/websense-features/archive/2009/08/20/websense-sets-the-record-straight-on-its-anti-censorship-policy.aspx?cmpid=pr
• http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/11/websense_yemen_filter_row/

When we get a chance to explain this to activists they often become fans.

• https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/11/week-internet-censorship
• http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/2012/03/02/websense-applauded-for-response-to-pakistans-call-for-censorship-partner/
• https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/03/filtering-software-companies-should-follow-websenses-lead
• http://bolobhi.org/press-release-public-statements/press-releases/civil-society-thank-websense/
• http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/news/websense-joins-global-network-initiative
• http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2011/12/websense-gni/
• http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Consento/start/3231/stop/3630

The challenge we have is that many of the most fervent contributors to date seem to have ignored these two important elements of our business. These contributors are those that have strayed the Websense Wikipedia entry from a neutral piece to one with clear agendas represented.

We look forward to ongoing discussions with all contributors and working with editors and WikiFairies to update the page in a sanctioned, impartial manner.

Best regards, Phogan83 (talk) 20:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)