Jump to content

Talk:Zedo

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by LizKulin (talk | contribs) at 23:22, 27 June 2012 (→Addition of Content Request (may 15th)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconCalifornia: San Francisco Bay Area Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Perspective on Selective Advertising

My impression is that a major function of Zedo is to collect information about visitors to its client's sites, primarily so that the advertising shown in the visitor's browser is targeted for each visitor, instead of being just random advertising.

If 'spyware' can be defined as the function of the surreptitious gathering of information about an individual, then Zedo obviously fits. However, it would be an actionable disservice to Zedo's clients and stockholders if the company doesn't do a lot more with that valuable information. (See "Corporate ethics & legal obligation vs. social & moral obligations of agents")

The question of whether it is called spyware or a service seems to depend on balancing many factors.

1) If the visitor (to any client site or site containing client advertising) values the benefit of seeing advertising that is more likely to be relevant to the visitor's interests, instead of just as much random (mostly impertinent) advertising, and is aware of the function and the true (trustworthy) use of that personal information taken, and chooses in its favor, then they have chosen the "service", not spyware.

2) If an advertiser prefers to optimize or present expensive advertising, only to probably receptive viewers, so as to avoid paying for and irritating probably disinterested viewers, and to reduce competition for low value viewers, then the Zedo function is a "service", not spyware.

If any of the above conditions is not true and trusted, then the person/business would consider the Zedo function spyware.

Also, the tolerance for spyware is not absolute. That is viewers and advertisers constantly balance the perceived value of the medium (website information) against the many costs involved in obtaining the information: hardware (computer, maintenance, etc.), access (ISP, registrations, etc.)personal time, possible loss of privacy & security, difficulty of use, and many other factors.

My personal preference is to strip all advertising from my browser. This simplifies my concerns about trust & privacy, my viewing of desired information without distraction, and reduces wasted screen space. However, as with most Radio, TV, & print broadcasting, much of the web's 'free' information and services depend on advertising revenue, I recognize that value to me (and all viewers collectively), and the possible benefit to me when I am shopping.

In conclusion, Zedo's activity, and the kind and use of the information obtained is generally hidden by design. The 'donors' of the information are not offered knowledge or control of their information, and cannot reasonably trust corporate integrity for its protection. Therefor, the software involved has its legitimate use in the marketplace, but is reasonably called spyware.
--Wikidity (talk) 16:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

disappointed

I used to trust Wiki for the quality of the information available. I am now feeling really disappointed to see ZEDO described as a "respectful" company in here ! ZEDO is a spyware,malware ... does not matter the name we give to it! The article must reflect the truth at some point - There is hundreds of post on the computing blogs relating the problem - there is thousands of computers infected —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.171.72 (talk) 21:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

a fair shot

This page is a general description with 3rd party sources. I am new to Wikipedia and am getting my feet wet with this article. Please give me a fair shot and let me know what i need to fix. Ispartacus 00:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, as the admin who deleted this the first time, I'll give you the shot. But, you need to fix your refs. Please use the proper citation templates. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 01:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ZEDO is known spyware and I have edited the page to reflect as much. wagsbags 23:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page is stated in a way that is reminiscent of an advertisement. 72.196.196.230 13:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a terrible article. It should be completely rewritten or deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.193.165 (talk) 15:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References added

I have added citations from The New York Times and The Independent. --ZimZalaBim talk 00:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ZEDO is intrusive spyware. Why does this FACT keep getting removed from edits? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.14.104 (talk) 23:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


This article should be deleted instead you should what is zedo, ways you can remove it from your coputer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.113.143 (talk) 00:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

February 2008

There is almost nothing of value in this article. What would be useful is how zedo works on your system and how to remove it. I removed some garbage that was irrelevant, but really the whole thing ought to go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.213.0.194 (talk) 14:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, so your suggestion of adding information about how to "remove it" would be inappropriate. --ZimZalaBim talk 14:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is common sense that any page about malware would include the obvious information about how to remove it, just as if you look up the flu it will contain information about the flu vaccine, and so on. As a matter of fact, ZimZalaBim, "not a how to guide" is not even one of the headings on the page you referenced. But "not your web host" is, and so is "not censored". Please immediately stop removing the basic information from this page for whatever reason.Jemima charmlimit (talk) 23:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Read down the page, and you'll find WP:NOT#HOWTO. Your other edits are POV original research. We are trying to cite facts about this company, not assertions by people who might be upset about their practices. --ZimZalaBim talk 00:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Krcassidy intro

I work for ZEDO and am new to Wikipedia. ZEDO has not had an internal representative until now. This article reflects the company vision, our products and services, history and more. I'm still learning how this works and will work on including more and more references and credits to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krcassidy (talk • contribs) 17:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While it can be a good thing to have a company representative involved in editing an article about that company, it's important to remember that the purpose of the ZEDO article in Wikipedia to not to "reflect the company vision, our products and services, history and more". The proper place for that is ZEDO's website. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be encyclopedic, not promotional. You removed several things from the article, including some (referenced) criticism, and that can't be removed without discussion. I'm reverting the article for now to the state it was before your changes.
As a admitted representative of the company, you need to be even more aware than most of Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines.
Please discuss your changes here before making them -- thanks! -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 18:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IP tracking ref

69.230.5.173 (talk) 16:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)thanks to everyone for helping to streamline the article. I have posted a new citation as requested by ZimZalaBim. Please let me know how I can continue to improve this article.[reply]

Well, the cite you added was merely about IP trackign in general, and didn't provide confirmation that Zedo engages in it. As such, it is insufficient. --ZimZalaBim talk 17:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was page moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ZEDO → Zedo — Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#All caps, and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks). —Cptnono (talk) 08:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Introduction: Sskamath

Hi. I work for ZEDO and am taking over the moderation of this page from Krcassidy. I am very new to this and my goal here is to ensure that this page complies with all the Wikipedia rules and regulations. I want to make sure that I do this right and the information posted on this page is true. I would really appreciate it if you could bear with me and work with me on getting the facts straightened out about ZEDO. I agree that this is not the place for marketing ZEDO. I would also appreciate it if I could work with someone at Wikipedia on ensuring that I am headed in the right direction. One of my main goals here is correcting the false notion that ZEDO is spyware. With the correct guidance and proof, I aim to remedy this. Hope to hear from the Wiki community soon :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sskamath (talk • contribs) 11:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sskamath. You have a conflict of interest and it is recommended that you do not edit the page. Please see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You should raise any concerns on this talk page instead of editing the article directly.Cptnono (talk) 07:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SineBot, for your response. I would be glad to raise my concerns here. Could you please tell me what sort of proof I can provide here to prove to you that Zedo does not engage in or promote spyware? Your feedback is appreciated. Thanks! Sskamath 07:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sskamath (talk • contribs)

Oops, I failed to sign correctly above. The article does not say it is spyware. It is verifiable that people have concerns and it is flagged by antispyware programs. It also already says that the company denies that categorization. You can provide it here if independent coverage (a nonsolicited write up in a magazine for example) that goes into more detail. Cptnono (talk) 07:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cptnono, I would like to add a link here. This is to the McAfee Siteadvisor test page, which rates Zedo as a good site without any adware, spyware, and other potentially unwanted programs or downloads: http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/zedo.com/ I will post more independent articles soon, which ratify Zedo as a clean site and one which doesn't engage in any bad internet behavior Sskamath 10:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sskamath (talk • contribs)

That site appears to be just a scan of the website. The company's cookies from other sites are what raise concerns. Check out Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Types of sources for some pointers on different types of sources. I'm also a big fan of Google News Archive searches and I assume Zedo has been written up in a few trade or consumer publications. To be completely honest with you, people have valid concerns with Zedo and I don't see how scrubbing this article of that information is possible. Nothing wrong with Zedo's counterpoint, though.Cptnono (talk) 10:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cptnono, Yes, I agree with your observations and that scrubbing this article of "bad press" is next to impossible. I have been researching and going through any and all information I could find on the internet, posted by independent sources, about the classifications of adware, spyware, viruses and other such malicious software that users claim Zedo to be a part of. I must re-iterate my point again, that Zedo doesn't fit into any of the definitions of such bad programs. Zedo cookies function in the same manner as any other good, clean ad server's does. Then why the dubious distinction for the Zedo cookies? Seems a bit unfair doesn't it? Could it be possible that users who encounter Zedo cookies are not aware of the exact terminology here, and assume that it's bad just because it's a cookie. Let's agree here that most internet users falsely assume every cookie to be a bad cookie :-)

And once again, thanks for taking the time for posting your thoughts here. Please continue doing this, I really appreciate it --Sskamath 11:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sskamath (talk • contribs)

No problem. Tracking cookies when combined with ads are annoying to most people. I'm sure clients enjoy the targeted results but there is going to be some blowback from the general consumer. I assume there is coverage on both sides of the coin.Cptnono (talk) 11:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And to sign your name, type four tildes (like this-> ~~~~ ) Cptnono (talk) 11:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am using the four tildes. I can see my signature after my posts. I also used the signature button in the edit tools above the page. Sskamath 11:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sskamath (talk • contribs)

I think one the reasons people have concerns with Zedo is when they are tagged in spyware/adware searches on computers through scanning software. That is how I came to this article in the first place--my spyware/adware scanner on my PC tagged Zedo as such, and I was curious what Zedo actually was. Cocytus [»talk«] 12:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WOT: Web of Trust

I attempted to remove this but it as reverted. McAfee Siteadvisor contradicts it. I personally don't like either since both discuss the website not the tracking cookies. WOT is also "community based" which might be why it gives the site (not the product) bad rep. Cptnono (talk) 22:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: I'm not trying to start an edit war over this but after thinking about it more it looks like DAJF's revert might have been a knee-jerk reaction. The site is actually rated "poor" which is the 2nd worst (not "very poor... the worst" as we say now). I also assume people can click it to their heart's content meaning without a date the prose may not match up to the source. This would make it unverifiable unless it was given coverage somewhere else.
Update on Web Of Trust: Hi Guys, I have been working on WOT and talking to users who have been complaining that Zedo promotes spyware. Please read my forum on WOT: http://www.mywot.com/en/forum/5423-zedo-is-not-spyware-or-malware

Many of the users have reviewed their negative statements and rated Zedo again, after reading my explanation and understanding exactly how Zedo works. The Zedo rating on WOT is not "very poor" or "poor" anymore, but conflicting. Hope this helps. --Sskamath 07:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sskamath (talk • contribs)

WOT was removed from the article some time ago.Cptnono (talk) 08:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Updating company information

Wiki Moderators, Hello again! It's been a while. There have been a lot of changes at ZEDO and as a result, I need to update the information on our company information page. As an ardent believer in the rules and regulations of the Wiki community, I did not want to make any changes before I informed you all. Please let me know if I can go ahead and edit the ZEDO page or if you would like me to post the changes here for approval. Thanks everyone and here's wishing you all Happy Holidays! Sskamath 22:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sskamath (talk • contribs)

Put the changes here with a source. Thanks!Cptnono (talk) 00:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cptnono, thanks for your response. Just wanted to let you know that not all the information that I want to update has sources that I can add. A lot of the information is just about the company and things that have changed over the years within the company. I am not quite sure how to give you sources for that information Sskamath 21:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sskamath (talk • contribs)

Copy the URL to the source here surrounded by brackets with the proposed text. Example: "Zedo blah blah blah.[finantialtimes/story123.com]" Cptnono (talk) 21:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that there are no sources to some of the information I need to change. For eg: The "about ZEDO" and "history" sections need updates but there is no link I can provide that directs to the change since these are all changes that we have done within the company. I will provide sources to the criticism and other relevant sections. Can I just update the ZEDO page with sources that I have and you can see what I mean? Thanks for all your help. Sskamath 21:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sskamath (talk • contribs)

No since we need verifiable sources. If you know something is incorrect (number of employees and the like) it might be appropriate to remove it but we can't replace text with information that is not sourced.Cptnono (talk) 22:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then can I post my whole draft here and you see what I am trying to change about company profile, history et al? You can verify the information and then I can update the main page accordingly. And about employees, locations etc, I will change it on the main page now. Is that ok? Also, I have found that on the ZEDO main wiki page, there are statements that have been added without sources, by other wiki users. Many of these statements are false. What would be the best way to correct something that is already posted without a source, since it is already not sourced? I want to make absolutely sure that I am not breaking any rules here :-) Sskamath 22:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sskamath (talk • contribs)

Cool. Go for it. Cptnono (talk) 22:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Statements without sources can go by the way. But you need to stop capping the name. It is against the manual of style. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) Cptnono (talk) 23:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I am so sorry :-) I'll stop trying to cap the name. I forgot about the manual of styling. Sskamath 23:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sskamath (talk • contribs)

Cptnono, I just wanted to ask why / how Adtech, a company that does what we do, is allowed to capitalize their name? Our trademark name is ZEDO, just like ADTECH is listed in all caps.Sskamath 00:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sskamath (talk • contribs)

Also, I removed the comment about spyware and adware that someone had put in the company summary section, at the top of the main page. That is a) a false statement and not part of the company summary describing what we do and b) is already posted in the criticism section, which in all fairness, also needs to be removed. I have been reading our competitors pages (these are companies that do exactly the same thing as us but these comments have been excluded from those pages)Sskamath 01:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sskamath (talk • contribs)

That is a problem/ This was discussed several months ago. The summary is supposed to be a standalone summary of the article and that info was sourced in the main body. This is not an advertising mechanism for Zedo. You have removed sourced information and add unsourced information. You need to stop or I am going to have to ask for a restriction on you editing the page. What your competitors pages say is of no interest to me and is not related to this article. Those are separate issues that need to be taken up over there. Adtech is not allowed to cap their name so it needs to be changed.Cptnono (talk) 03:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the misunderstanding, but the sentence I removed from the "about ZEDO" section is already there in the "criticism" section. I was only making sure that the "about ZEDO" section displays what the company is all about, a company summary. I am not trying to use this page as an advertising mechanism for ZEDO, but in fact, treating it like an encyclopedia of information for users on the internet, which is in fact what Wikipedia is all about. Sourced information isn't necessarily always true. Please note, I am trying really hard to make sure everything on the ZEDO page only displays true information, however good or bad. My only intention being internet users are correctly informed, not misled.

It's too bad that other pages on Wikipedia are of no interest to you. But I will accept your suggestion and take up that issue on discussion boards for those pages. Thanks! 69.230.5.173 (talk) 18:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to login before posting the previous comment. So... Sskamath 18:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sskamath (talk • contribs) Sskamath (talk) 18:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

Opting out of Zedo only means that you will see random & redundant ads instead of ads that are targeted at you.

The implication of "Opting out" is that you have avoided the spying (personal behavior recording & profiling, and that it will no longer collect (cookies) or sell your individual or bundled Profile Data (PD) for third-party use). There is currently no available evidence found for this inference, since PD is different from Personally Identifiable Information (PII)).

In other words, Zedo does not let you reduce the number of ads, nor of their profile development (cookies/spying). You only avoid the only arguably useful thing they do for you, which is to tailor ads you do see.
--Wikidity (talk) 18:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Jenks24 (talk) 08:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Zedo → ZEDO – Can we please get authorization from the Wikipedia community to change the page title from Zedo to ZEDO. Understand that it is not an acronym, but ZEDO in all caps is the company's legal name and real brand name. This Wikipedia page should represent ZEDO accurately, and currently it is not (this is not an opinion of us who are affiliated with ZEDO, it is just a fact). Please see the following 3rd party sources that support this by publishing ZEDO's name in all caps: http://www.imediaconnection.com/resourceconnection/companydetail.aspx?companycategory=adservices&companyname=Zedo http://www.adoperationsonline.com/2012/01/24/zedos-new-inview-slider-runs-on-any-ad-server/ http://www.editorandpublisher.com/Technology/Article/ZEDO-Inc-States-That-It-Is-a-True-Partner-for-Newspapers. 24.22.135.173 (talk) 19:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)Liz Kulin[reply]

I took care of fixing ADTECH. Dicklyon (talk) 18:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Can ZEDO add copy after it's name on its Wikipedia page that says "(Trademarked as ZEDO)". Would like to consult the editing community before making any changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.135.173 (talk) 18:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added that. If you represent Zedo, it's best that you not do it yourself. We'll see if anyone objects or wants to change how it's presented. Dicklyon (talk) 20:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Removing Unsupported Statements

Hi Wikipedia editing community. The following statement on the ZEDO Wikipedia page is not supported with a reliable source - The sentence: "Zedo is often linked to the controversy over spyware[8] " Reference #8 is invalid. It is a non-existent webpage. Can you please remove the statement, or approve the removal, or at least support it with a valid reference. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.135.173 (talk) 21:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would also like to inquire about this: The phrase: "as well as the methods which it gathers information, such as deceptive ads and clickjacking." It is not true nor supported by any reference. Can this be deleted?

Finally, The sentence: "There is no effect at all on the objectionable Zedo functions: the number of ads, profile development (cookies), and their use (spying)." The reference used is a ZEDO webpage (http://www.zedo.com/company/optout.htm) which never talks about number or ads, cookies, or spying anywhere in it. Can this be deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.135.173 (talk) 18:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

In this edit, Versageek restored a number of claims which are not contained in the sources given. Rather than revert him right away, I thought it best to open a discussion here.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Going through this, line by line:

1. "Zedo is linked to spyware" - the source given says that the risk from Zero is "very low" - it is misleading to omit this information, suggesting that the source is an attack on Zedo when it is not.

2. "as well as the methods which it gathers information, such as deceptive ads and clickjacking.[citation needed] " - obviously this is negative unsourced information which must be immediately removed per WP:BLP

3. "The company disputes being categorized as spyware." - The reference given does not have the company "disputing" such a characterization. Instead, the referenced page says what I say it says: "The company has an anti-spyware policy and utilizes an ad scanning system which "requently checks the content and source of ads served by [...] partners"" Writing that someone has denied something, when they haven't denied it (because no accusation has been made) is libelous and wrong.

4. "Programs such as Spybot - Search & Destroy quarantine Zedo software as adware so that users can remove it from their computer." - the source does not make that claim. I accurately quoted the source for what it does say.

I have no idea why Versageek did this, but rather than revert immediately, I'm asking him to explain himself.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This page was on my watchlist for whatever reason, so... until an explanation is provided, I have undone it. I do not see why the changes were reverted, much less using rollback which isn't intended for this purpose. Calabe1992 13:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Chances are, this was an accidental click of the rollback button. I've accidentally rolled back random edits to pages on my watchlist. WP:BLP does not apply here since this is about a company, not a living person. However, that is no reason to keep unsourced negative content, so I think it should just be removed anyway. This sentence is by far the worst: "Zedo is linked to spyware[8] because Zedo uses HTTP cookies to track users' browsing and advertisement viewing history,[9][10] as well as the methods which it gathers information, such as deceptive ads and clickjacking", since it manages to violate WP:SYNTH, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV all in one go. (EDIT: I see Calabe has already reverted the rollback.) Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Just as an aside, I think BLP does apply to companies when the allegations are about matters that would likely be criminal or ethical violations if true. Companies are just groups of people.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While I may be inclined to agree that criticism directed against companies needs to be treated more sensitively that it is typically on Wikipedia, what you're arguing re BLP is pretty far-reaching and certainly isn't the established convention here. If anything, the opposite is true: I've seen a company's notability be gaged solely on the basis of the amount of criticism it received in the press. If one wants to argue that Zedo is entitled to BLP-like standards of content, those same standards need to find their way into the project's policies, otherwise it's just an ad-hoc decision.—Biosketch (talk) 12:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


You want me to keep on going, big guy? You put so much thought into BS that you forgot about the project being influenced by primary sources. I can't type my way out of a paper bag and I still noticed that you ignored obvious MoS issues. Get it together or get out. You focus on keeping the project alive while others can focus on not letting garbage advertising articles take over. You obviously can't do the later. Cptnono (talk) 05:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of Content Request

Hi, I work with ZEDO and wanted to see if it would be ok for me to add a fact to their main wikipedia page. I would like to add "ZEDO is an associate and professional member of the Online Trust Alliance." [1]

Please let me know if this addition is allowed.

Thank you,

Liz Kulin ZEDO Marketing liz@zedo.com LizKulin (talk) 23:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)lizkulin[reply]

Done!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much JW! LizKulin (talk) 22:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of Content Request (may 15th)

{{[[Template:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]]}} Hi, I would like inquire if another addition of content to my company's Wikipedia page would be ok to make. I work for ZEDO and would like to make the following addition to our wikipedia page: "Zedo began counting newspapers in early 2010 and counts as clients a number of dailies. ZEDO launched an ad operations service team that can serve as a paper's online advertising operation. Zedo also provides outsourced ad production, ad management software, network optimization and self-service ad services." [5]

I would like to know if this an appropriate addition and that it fits with Wikipedia guidelines.

Thank you, Liz Kulin ZEDO Marketing liz@zedo.com LizKulin (talk) 22:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe someone else may have a different point of view, but to me the "Zedo also provides outsourced ad production, ad management software, network optimization and self-service ad services." reads like an advertisement... (heh, funny) - Rich(MTCD)T|C|E-Mail 23:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Rich. Are you suggesting that we remove that part of the quote? It is just a list of the products and services we offer but will remove it if the editing community has a problem with it. Liz Kulin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.86.18 (talk) 23:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rich, we are happy to remove that portion of the addition and just add, ""Zedo began counting newspapers in early 2010 and counts as clients a number of dailies. ZEDO launched an ad operations service team that can serve as a paper's online advertising operation." [6]

Since the Wikipedia editing community has not disapproved the addition of this content we are going to assume it is acceptable to add to our main Wikipedia page and are going to do so early next week unless we hear otherwise from a Wikipedia editor. Thank you. Liz Kulin, ZEDO Marketing Manager. LizKulin (talk) 23:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ http://www.otalliance.org/about/Members.htm
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zedo&oldid=499675506"