Talk:Don't be evil

Please add {{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Business B‑class Mid‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Ethics Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

???

This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Ethics

Too pro-Google?

I certainly don't want the article to be some tirade against Google, but it seems to me that the article - well, mostly just the abstract - reads in a very positive, salesman-like light. Anyone object to reworking the language a little bit?

Miscellany that had accumulated at the top of the talk page

Doesn't "Don't Be Evil" contradict what the "Google Maps Street View" is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.83.37.3 (talk) 03:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article http://www.ftrain.com/GoogleIP.html linked to as "How the Don't Be Evil philosophy enhanced Google's brand image" is uninteresting and poorly written, so I will take the link out. Take it back if you disagree.

Um, anyone who read that article would see it is a big joke. What was it doing linked there in the first place? --FrogMonster

Does anyone else disagree that there should be any controversy regarding what google did in china? I don't consider it evil, because google had to choose between not including a few specific pages in their search results or having the chinese government firewalls block all users in china from using google at all... -Raggedtoad

Old RfD from moved page

From WP:RfD:

Don't be evil → Google -- ~~Delete, obvious vandalism.~~ --Blackcap | talk 20:34, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. "Don't be evil" is Google's "informal corporate motto"[1], [2]. The redirect is appropriate. -- BD2412 ^talk 21:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - My apologies, I didn't know that, just hit this on RC patrol. Nomination withdrawed. I've changed the redirect to point to Don't Be Evil rather than Google. --Blackcap | talk 22:54, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Controversy" section

Much of the "Controversy" section seems to lack NPOV when discussing the controversies and needs citations. --mtz206 04:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"...I do agree with certainly Microsoft and others in the industry on one key point....we are always happy to give recognition to those researchers who find fault and say thank you, we have fixed it, and we tell our customers.

There are a group of researchers for whom thank you and potentially hiring them for bettering your software is not enough. They want your scalp, and one of the ways they get that is by releasing exploit code at forums such as Black Hat and other hacker conventions."

Also see page 37 (page 49 of 80 in my PDF viewer), number 13 at http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/mime/open.pdf?Item=965 for specific mention of what goes on in the newsgroups you can find on Google.

As I said in a previous edit summary, I won't be doing business with Google because of them facilitating this stuff.

-Barry- 15:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've added mention of "morally questionable content in Google Groups" to this section. That should suffice, although I still feel each of these "controversies" needs a citation indicating they are more than just one person's opinion. --mtz206 16:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll keep it in your words. An anti-hacker website might be a good thing to cite if you want a citation, if it contains relevant comments. I didn't look for the very best reference for linking from the article. Footnotes are kind of discouraged by Wikipedia because some other publications have stopped using them, but a references section should be OK if you're inclined to add one. -Barry- 23:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not about Google being evil, it's about normal people using Google for evil stuff. Why blame Google for having users trading passwords on their groups?

There has been a somewhat spammy section which some conspiracy theorists claim Google is tied to the CIA but neither cites evidence or makes sense. I've edited to make it more NPOV although removal would seem more appropriate 66.240.48.106 19:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The section still seems to be biased. LN3000 21:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have modified the section with the official response from Google to the accusations of censorship, and I believe it is no longer POV. Swap (talk) 13:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External link to Milton Friedman

This isn't really about Google or "Don't be Evil" specifically but is about CSR ingeneral so I'm gonna cut it her and put it at Corporate social responsibility A Geek Tragedy 21:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Morally questionable"

This seems to be a fairly odd claim that may be borderline OR / personal opinion, and, given the way the Usenet works (and how broad is the meaning of "hacking instructions"), may be entirely out of place. Are there any sane sources (say, a newspaper article) that discuss this controversy? --lcamtuf 20:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patents?

Is Google involoved in any (unethical?) patent situations like Amazon when it tried to patent the "1-click" technology? It owuld be nice to know.

Controversy: Don't Be Good

Google, like any other public corporation for profit, has to put investor's interests first over social responsibility. It's just a general aspect of everyday capitalism. It's nice they try to impose a motto on themselves, but in the end the CEO must convince the shareholders, or be replaced by somebody who will. Therefore Don't Be Evil can only be seen as a nice gesture. To actually live by such a motto requires you to abandon the corporate principle and choose the non-profit path. The limited liability company is a company structure more suitable for social responsibility, as it isn't controlled by a rather anonymous large group of people, but by a few morally aware ones. Thus the controversy in this article is a bit redundant, since the entire idea of a corporation not being evil is controversial by definition. So maybe it belongs into the definition of the article? --lynX 13:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice gesture? More like Big Lie. 74.78.162.229 (talk) 19:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how Google is structured. They have two classes of stock, with their founders and CEO holding stock that votes at 10x normal value. http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/2004-05-16-google-nonvoting_x.htm) The CEO isn't as vulnerable to that sort of thing here, so they could live by such a model without being replaced.

Merennulli (talk) 19:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google Ad

Does anyone else see this page as a very unsubtle advertisement for Google? Hisownspace 16:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't see it. Matt.T.911 (talk) 22:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Don't be evil" (sentence case)

I'm going to redirect the page to the sentence case version of "Don't be evil" since that is how it is rendered on Google's own Code of Conduct page, as well as in this Wired article. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 01:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Ad Business and Being Evil

Google by revenue is an ad company. They make money by selling ads.

Isn't an ad company inheritantly evil? They need to collect personal info in order to target people. They need to deliver ads that many times prop up what they are selling in dubious manners. And instead of accepting a fair price for a service or product, their goal is to get you to buy other products and services as payment for theirs. So the actual cost is hidden, instead of fairly presented.

Nothing is wrong with this of course, it is just how ad companies operate, which is usually in an evil fashion, by nature of what it is to get people to view ads and buy things.

So, as google is an ad company, they are by definition evil.

Should this be referenced in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JulianB12 (talk • contribs) 11:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think, that ads are generelly evil, because nobody is forced to buy things becausse of ads and everyone can use his mind to think about what he has seen/read in the ads and if he doesn't, it's his own fault. Of course some ads may be evil, but google doesn't make theses ads, it just displays them. The only thing about the google ads which I find evil is, that they store everything you searched for years. --Qaywsxedc (talk) 10:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship deal with China

The article says that Google's support center withdrew its claim that it does not censor any search after reaching a deal with China. Question: does this claim no longer apply to search results in China, or worldwide? After all a deal is a deal and the Chinese could have demanded changes in other search servers (though obviously not with the same visibility). 70.15.116.59 (talk) 23:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quesiton

What is "evil" according to google? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.231.158.68 (talk) 10:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently not censorship. And apparently they don't view censorship as an exploitation of the user either. Google may be changing the software industry, but they're not changing the English language. They're not that powerful... yet. Amwestover (talk) 23:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Controversy?

Google has recently begun testing changes to iGoogle, their portal interface. To do so, they selected an apparently random group of users and switched them over to the test version - which I'll mention does not work. As a control to their test, they chose not to offer an opt-out. Any test involving people which is not optional for those being tested on is not ethical. Also mentioning this in the iGoogle article discussion in case it should be there instead.

http://www.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=97658

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/01/google_personal_homepage_brouhaha/

Merennulli (talk) 19:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]