Talk:Blekko

Aim to/ Aim at

Hi. In English, you aim TO do something and you aim AT something. "I aim to achieve great success"; "I aim my weapon at the wall", "We aim TO please"; "They took aim at the target". --Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 00:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Even if "to aim at" is less common than "to aim to", and is generally used in a slightly different way, still there is nothing wrong with the phrase as it was. There are far worse errors against English language on wikipedia, on which to loose your obvious need for nitpicking. Les us please respect the effort of the original author. BTW "Hi" is not correct English, either, according to some. Jan olieslagers (talk) 09:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint you, but I am not going to revert it again. I don't play your kind of games. I have better things to do. If it is such a petty change, why are you wasting your time reverting it THREE times? Do you know about the three-revert rule?--Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 18:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Could both of you please maintain a professional tone? This is starting down the path to a flame war. The point is this, Jan: I nitpick on any grammatical mistake I see while reading a Wikipedia article. The fact that neither I nor Gabriel read every article, or notice every mistake, in no way disqualifies us from editing mistakes we do see. Wikipedia generally uses the most frequent usage, and if we see a case where that convention is not held to, we have every right to change it. Also, you keep bringing up the "original author", but as I pointed out on your talk page, the person who puts down the first couple sentences of an article does not own that article, and does not have a right to have every word of their original retained. Besides that, unless you are the original author, I don't see them complaining about the change. Lolinder (talk) 19:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Lolinder, thanks for the reminder. I certainly want to avoid personal conflict, indeed I meant to unwatch this page. Allow me to explain that I try to avoid "the most frequent usage" because it leads to what is called in German Einheitswurst, I think we could call it the least common multiple. It is a phenomenon that rather scares me, the whole world is turning to English as a 'lingua franca' - in itself not a bad thing, at the contrary - but in the process this beautiful multi-faceted language gets narrowed to its minimum and that's where I feel compelled to act. The original phrase is uncommon, I will again agree to that. But that does not make it incorrect, so for me it could be left at what it was. English is a beautiful language, with a broad panoply of variations on many themes. I should be sorry to see these disappear. If you have any academical/encyclopedical source to confirm "aiming at providing (whatever)" is incorrect English, I'll be glad to recognise authority. And no, I am not the original autor; and I agree the original author can never claim any rights on the original text. Still I feel the original effort merits every respect, unless proven incorrect. FWIW, I am not a native speaker of the English language, but I do live nearby, and have visited England very frequently over the last 40 years or so, both for work and on vacation trips; I think I am entitled to some degree of opinion on what is correct English and what is not. But again, do feel free to come up with a source of authority if you wish. Finally, my repeated gratitude for your polite and correct style of discussion. Kindly, Jan olieslagers (talk) 20:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Jan, your rationale for the change as a way to try and save the diversity of language is praiseworthy and I do the same in the languages that I work with. I had a Swiss professor for French at university and will never forget him saying that in French, where possible, one never repeats words in close proximity in a text. I've always observed that and strive for colourful diverse vocabulary. But at the same time, where something scratches you ear (for whatever reason - incorrect use, wrong register, incorrect within context, etc), I opt for something that the ear will find pleasing. Best regards, --Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 21:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Gabriel, your reply is really warming my old heart. Possibly, the three of us are creating a nice example story of three educated critical persons, each accidently coming across one article when it was mentioned in the "did you know" - starting a violent but short argument about English vocubalury/grammar - none of us an Englander, just see the irony of it all! - staunch yet polite discussion - how many centuries to get our statue? Don't get me started on what it should look like! Broadly smiling, yours very kindly, Jan olieslagers (talk) 21:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

DefamatoryUnsourced or unreliably sourced claims

No further claims of "installs itself without permission" or "malware" will be allowed in this article without two independent reliable sources, meaning notable authors in notable publications which explicitly state such accusations. --Lexein (talk) 04:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be backing out many people's claims about Blekko being malware, and now you appear to be claiming ownership of this article. Exactly who are you? Do you work for Blekko? The fact that Blekko takes over users' browsers without their knowledge is acting like malware and many people try to get it reflected in this article. Neutral POV demands that it be included. Edmund Blackadder (talk) 07:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Standard Wikipedia consensus-based policy will not allow unsourced claims, or false statements, or exaggerations of sources' statements. You play fast and loose with the truth; for example, I've claimed no ownership of this article. I am, however, removing unsourced, false, and exaggerated claims. There is no reliable source for Blekko "taking over" any browser. CNet's shareware installer does it, according to all the unreliable sources. That CNET has not apparently made removal easy is CNET's responsibility, not Blekko's. Get your facts, and your sources, straight. Oh, and btw I do not work for Blekko. --Lexein (talk) 02:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Blekko's own page states that they take over the home page and the search upon download. My facts and sources are straight, and I am trying to find a objective way to insert this into the article. You, on the other hand, spam defamatory statements on my user page and insult anybody who attempts to state any fact that is not in keeping with Blekko's story. Are you paid by them? What company do you work for? You certainly seem to be doing your best to burnish their reputation. Edmund Blackadder (talk) 08:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Your argument would have more merit if you provided a link to "Blekko's own page" here. Ok, so it's in the article lead paragraph, where it doesn't belong either. Well, Blekko's toolbar is not called malware there, or in your proffered blog, either. The cited blog does not call Blekko's toolbar malware, only "potentially unwanted", and it refers to CNET's installer as the problem, not Blekko's toolbar. This is not an article about CNET. There is still no reliable source claiming that ANYONE notable or reliable thinks Blekko's toolbar is malware. Finally, all search engine toolbars either replace, or offer to replace, your search and default homepage URLs, not just Blekko's. Misquotation, misparaphrase, and exaggeration of sources really does not go over well here at Wikipedia, and now you know that. See WP:RS and WP:Citing sources and Verifiability, not truth.

Told you already, I'm not at all associated with Blekko. Apparently you didn't see that I added reviews, including two that are not positive. Removing unsourced facts, exaggerations of sources, or personal opinion about an entity is not "burnishing their reputation."

It's simple: please do not add claims without citing reliable independent sources which actually make that claim, do not add personal opinion or bias, do not cite unreliable sources, and try not to take it personally when edits are reverted due to reasons like those I've offered. And do not continue to make false assertions about me. My edits were on policy, sorry you don't like them. --Lexein (talk) 12:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

False, unsourced, defamatory, unreliably sourced, and debunked claims, again

See above. --Lexein (talk) 08:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Censorship, again

Once again Lexein has acted as a Wikipedia censor.

In the article about Blekko I added "As of 2012, this search engine installs itself without asking the user's permission. It redirects attempts to use Google or Bing search engines to blekko." My comment was removed within hours. My statement is completely true based on my experience and I will be very happy to testify to it in a court of law, as, I suspect, will the many authors of articles that come up when you search (in a non-Blekko search engine) the phrase "Is Blekko a virus?" A dozen witnesses count for a lot more than one "reliable source" in any court of law.

Lexein apparently is unfamiliar with legal terminology. A claim is not "defamatory" (or false) when it is true. She or he should be a lot more careful about who they accuse of defamation.

Lexein: What reliable or notable source has debunked the often repeated claims that Blekko installs itself without the user's permission and that it redirects Goggle and Bing searches to Blekko?

Lexein says that all search engines, like Blekko, install themselves or attempt to install themselves as the default search, which is true. None of them, except Blekko, redirect a user's search from their engine of choice to Blekko.

Wouldn't it be more honest and ethical of Lexein to refute these claims within the context of the article (as in under the heading of "Controversies") than to censor them and hurl unsourced insults at honest posters? Then the reader could be the judge. Isn't that the way Wikipedia is supposed to work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boblo949 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

No. I'm one of tens of thousands of Wikipedia editors empowered by consensus to remove unsourced statements. That you consider that to be censorship is your problem, not ours. I've been polite to this point, and I will continue to attempt to be so. Your personal experience constitutes the very definition of WP:Original research, and is not usable as a reliable source in any encyclopedia, let alone Wikipedia.

I never said "all search engines install themselves", as you misquote. I said, and intended to convey, that search bars, when installed by users, reset default search sources. And some, in the past, have indeed overreached and interfered with use of other search resources, and have been difficult to remove. However, Blekko's search bar does not "install itself" - its install process is explicitly started by the user. The difficulty in removing it is down to CNET's installer, as documented and discussed previously. Having installed, and easily removed Blekko's search bar, following the instructions, my experience directly contradicts yours. Now what do we do? We report neither in Wikipedia articles, since neither you nor I are published, nor widely known, authors, nor has our work been cited in published works: we are not reliable sources. Please read WP:RS, and WP:V, and, too, WP:OR.

Your claims have been made, and debunked, in unfortunately, unreliable sources. Live by the sword, and die by it: none of it goes into Wikipedia until independent, verifiable, reliable sources cover it. The fact is that no RS (searched off-Blekko) have seen fit to cover your claims and frustrations. This should tell you something: There's nothing inherently wrong with Blekko's search bar, or search engine. If there was, it would have been covered in CERT and other reputable malware and threat news sources. But, interestingly, there does seem to be a concerted negative publicity campaign against Blekko. Are you part of that? Please read WP:COI and WP:BATTLEGROUND. --Lexein (talk) 17:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Having read both of your comments, the previous discussion and viewed the contentious information I have come to several conclusions. The first relates to the content dispute; the claim: "As of 2012, this search engine installs itself without asking the user's permission. It redirects attempts to use Google or Bing search engines to blekko.", cannot be included in the article without a reliable source because all contentious material must be backed up by such a source. "I know it to be true" isn't sufficient for this to be included because that would be original research. It should also be pointed out that blogs are not reliable sources, especially for controversial statements. I also have some comments on the behaviour of all three editors involved in the discussions about this information. First is that the repeated use of the word "Defamation" by all of you is covered by the policy on legal threats. I request that all of you please think about the implications of what you write. Second is the similar accusations of conflicts of interest that are also thrown about by all parties; this is not acceptable and is definitely not assuming good faith. To summarise, the disputed claim should not be re-added until a reliable source is provided to back it up. An example would be a news article from a reputable publisher. In addition, it is impossible for a collegial atmosphere to be maintained if all editors casually throw around serious accusations, therefore I implore all three of you to think carefully about the meaning of words before you type and to at least try to assume good faith.Mrmatiko (talk) 18:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

To Third Opinion Mrmatiko (thank you for any responses you are willing to provide):

--Suppose my posting had read "As of 2012 blekko allegedly installs itself without asking the user's permission." Could some editor remove it, and if so wouldn't they ethically be obligated to remove tens of thousands of similarly phrased and unsourced postings in other Wikipedia articles?

• You would still have needed a source. That other articles need improvement is no reason to allow this article to be damaged by poorly sourced, controversial statements. Also weasel words such as "allegedly" aren't appropriate for wikipedia because we note facts, not rumours.

--If an article were to be written in a "notable" publication that supported my claim wouldn't Wikipedia accept the legitimacy of that article even if it was based exclusively on interviews with bloggers (or witnesses)?

• The notability of the publication isn't as important as the reliability. There would have to be some clear evidence in the source beyond hearsay for such a claim.

--Why is it that Wikipedia rejects the word of bloggers inspite of the fact that Wikipedia is itself a blog? (Lexein recently deleted one of my edits because it came from an unreliable source--Wikipedia.)

• Wikipedia is not a blog. Wikipedia can't be used to reference claims within Wikipedia articles because that would be circular referencing and damages the credibility of the encyclopedia.

--Why does Wikipedia accept as reliable sources publications that are notorious for their lies?

• A reliable source is (by definition) one that isn't notorious for lies, so I'm not sure what you are trying to get at here. If you have concerns about the reliability of a source then find a better one.

--Although I once considered Wikipedia a reasonable place to start, as a scholar I, and the vast majority of teachers in America agree with Lexein that Wikipedia is unreliable. So given that Wikipedia is no Oxford English Dictionary, no Brittanica, no New York Times and it concedes that information on Wikipedia is unreliable, why can't it at least serve some useful purpose by allowing open discussion and debate within its articles?

• Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a debating platform. The discussion on content of articles can take place here; discussion and debate on the subject should take place elsewhere, such as forums or blogs.

--You, the unbiased the third party, criticized the behavior of the editors (I assume including me). Since I really don't know, who do you believe I defamed or accused of defamation or accused of conflict of interest?

• I don't believe that you defamed anyone. The problem is that words such as "defame" have serious legal definitions and can easily be assumed to be a legal threat, editors who make legal threats will find them selves blocked quite quickly. I also apologise for implying that you made legal threats, having re-read your statement, you appear to be the only one of the three editors involved in this dispute (which I've taken to also involve Talk:Blekko#Defamatory claims) to have avoided misusing legal terminology.

To Lexein: You accused me of making false and defamatory claims and then you have the temerity to say "I've been polite to this point..."? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boblo949 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I've interleaved my answers using bullet points. --Mrmatiko (talk) 06:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

1. Hm. I am a long-term editor in good standing, unaccustomed to hints that I might be blocked, for merely sternly opposing off-policy editing. I disagree with Mrmatiko's assessment of "legal threat." I read the policy, and I think I'm well within bounds in my assertions about false, unsourced, and falsely-sourced statements made by IP and registered users about Blekko. Did I make or imply a legal threat? No. Did I write strong cautions to editors to back off using unsourced or false or defamatory language? Yes. But I'm fine with striking through the word "defamatory", and replacing it with "unsourced or unreliably sourced".
2. Yes, I have been polite, and I plan to continue to be so; though I will call a WP:SPADE a spade. --Lexein (talk) 14:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

To Third Opinion Mrmatiko:

Thank you very much for your unexpectedly thorough and civil response to my many questions. Unfortunately, I have to contest some of your statements.

--"Allegedly" is NOT a "Weasel Word" as defined by the article that you cited. According to that article "Alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined." (Sorry for the circular reference to a Wikipedia article.)

--Wikipedia's own definitions of notability and reliability seem incoherent to me. And, it is really not clear what constitutes "clear evidence" and who is allowed (and not allowed0 to make that determination.

--By Wikipedia's definition of circular referencing the Oxford English Dictionary could not refer to itself. I think that may come as a surprise to OED, but I may be wrong.

--There is not enough time or space to address the issue of unreliable sources that Wikipedia accepts without question.

--I am very sorry to say that Wikipedia IS a blog, albeit an edited blog. It is a blog that is edited by people with limited expertise. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia which has been "researched and written by well-educated, well-informed content experts." (Again, sorry for the circular reference to a Wikipedia article.)

--Thank you for qualifying your comments about editors' behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boblo949 (talk • contribs) 09:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I feel that further community input is required to solve this issue and have notified some recent contributors to Blekko of this discussion. --Mrmatiko (talk) 14:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

On the topic of Blekko, if the article said “A search engine installs itself without permission”, I’d want a bit of clarification otherwise I wouldn’t take the article very seriously. It sounds like it is some browser configuration being installed rather than a search engine. Anyway, since the issue is causing so much discussion, I agree that finding good source would help the solve issue one way or another. Vadmium (talk, contribs) 06:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC).

I hope that this does get resolved soon and that appropriate warnings to potential users of this software are permitted to be added to this page. I have just spent two hours removing Blekko and other related unwanted software from my computer, as well as fixing browser settings that had been updated - without permission - to redirect searches and replace homepages with Blekko.