Talk:Babylon (software)/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Ad or Encyclopedia Entry?

I used to use Babylon quite a bit when it was free and people contributed dictionaries and terms. I also knew an number of other other people who used to too. That is no longer the case--and I made a revision to the Babylon entry today, reflecting that reality. Babylon used to be a good program, even a great program, but not anymore. It uses a bad business model and, in my opinion, the company ripped a lot of people off by taking their open source (like) dictionaries. What I want to know is why my revision was so quickly deleted.

Read WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought etc, ⌠Yellow up⌡ 20:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I would love for you to explain to me how "is considered" to be different from "was considered". Neutral Point of view? Original thought? Give me a break... As I said before, this entry reads like an advertisement, where no negative points can be said about the product. Indeed, you seem to have a fairly vested interest in this software. How much is Babylon paying you to watch over this page? The truth is out there, although apparently not on Wiki.

You can think whatever you want, I didn't write "is considered" and I don't care that you removed it but you mustn't add your thoughts about the program here. ⌠Yellow up⌡ 11:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

As I suggested below, perhaps a criticism section should be added. There are valid criticisms--not mine alone I might add--that would be useful for users and/or people thinking about buying the software. While we are at it, we might also want to suggest alternative free and open source resources that do the same as Babylon.

You can't add criticism to everything, you add it only when it is popular enough. Otherwise you can add "Criticism" to articles such as cat. ⌠Yellow up⌡ 21:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)`

Not quite true. And who are you to be the judge of what to criticize or not? Babylon was popular and it screwed up, making it an interesting case-study. Perhaps the entry for MSN messenger might be a better example to follow. In any event, I am not convinced that your changes are done in good faith. Perhaps this should be mediated by a third party? Taking the Microsoft Messenger example, I am reverting the changes you made. Teguiste 08:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not judging what to criticise and what not. When you add criticism, it must be from a reliable source, not a forum post or a deduction from a Google ranking chart. Otherwise you could add a critisicm section to A, saying that some people don't like the letter's form, I'm sure you can find some people saying that in blogs or forums. ⌠Yellow up⌡ 20:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't just any forum--it was a forum on Babylon's site (since removed, but held on waybackmachine)--that explained some of the problems with Babylon Translator. And to differ, Google Trends explicitly shows the decline of the program's popularity. IMHO, both are valid sources to document the decline of this particular program.Teguiste 08:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia function

Babylon translator seem to have a "Wikipedia dictionnary" avalable. If you click on "Napoleon" with this babylon, you get the wikipedia article Napoleon. If I can , I will send a screen shoot of that. Yug

It shows only the first few lines though, with a link to go directly to the article. -TonyW 23:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Text Translation

I claim Babylon's accuracy with "Full Text Translation" is worth noting in the article, since it is factual information. Any objections? Anonymous --212.199.170.75 15:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Time bomb functionality

I've added information about the time bomb functionality of older versions. I think it's a notable addition because the free versions have been major contributors to Babylon's popularity. Anonymous --212.199.170.75 16:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Yellow up, I see you removed my additions. May I ask, are you affiliated with Babylon? I was trying to provide facts that are free from prejudice. I might be judging software by providing the information, but my intention is to provide information that is not biased. --212.199.170.75 20:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not affiliated with Babylon. We don't review programs here, we do not criticize them and we do not report any bug and/or problem with a program. ⌠Yellow up⌡ 22:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, just to let you know, a lot of articles about software applications here look more like reviews than regular articles, and many of them contain public opinion. and btw, I have nothing against Babylon, I actually like the software. --212.199.170.75 00:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Update: To the best of my memory, the information that I added and got removed [5] is accurate, but in order to check whether it's still actual, I'm searching for Babylon version 2. --212.199.170.75 20:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad that to the best of your memory it is accurate. Additionally, even if it were accurate, it is completely irrelevant to the article. P.S. it was never "designed as freeware", even the first versions of Babylon said it's a "time-limited trial version", but the time was not really limited, so even if Babylon had added a limit, that's reasonable. ⌠Yellow up⌡ 15:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, if it's accurate then it's quite relevant, or at least can be made relevant by editing it properly, since it is the program's history and provides some detail about the inner workings of the program. It could be that I've witnessed this feature in v1 but I'm not sure. And regarding your comment that it was never designed as freeware, I have a link that proves otherwise. Check this link: Babylon.com freeware at Usenet newsgroups --212.199.170.75 19:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I know that in your opinion it's quite relevant, but it's not. It's obvious you have some motive to criticize Babylon. I don't know about those Usenet results, I know that I have been using Babylon for a long time, since v2.0 if I'm not mistaken and the "About" window always said "Time-limited". ⌠Yellow up⌡ 19:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I also think I have some motive to criticize Babylon, since I'd like to see the prices getting better and the program getting improved among other things. I guess more neutrality is needed in order to make important contributions that are widely accepted in Wikipedia. --212.199.170.75 20:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Software issues

I think it might be relevant to include information about unresolved issues in versions that are still being used today [6]. Anonymous --212.199.170.75 17:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

it states that microsoft says its not a malware anymore but why cant i remove it from firefox?it is still a malware imo. this POS is harder to remove than bonzi buddy. hell i'd take bonzi over this trash anytime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.60.240.201 (talk) 06:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

criticism section

perhaps a criticism section could be included. Windows Vista has one. Why not Babylon? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.37.55.9 (talk) 10:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

Because Babylon isn't as criticised as Windows Vista is, ⌠Yellow up⌡ 11:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Right, good answer. I have another theory: you likely work for them.

And I'd say I'm the only one in this discussion page who is not interested. ⌠Yellow up⌡ 21:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I think any article should have a criticism section if there are criticisms, as there clearly are. - hmwith talk 07:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

There are no criticisms from real sources. There are only people complaining it costs money instead of being free. ⌠Yellow up⌡ 14:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

That is not true. They were people complaining about the appropriation of community built dictionaries. Read the discussion on the link I gave. Teguiste 14:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Complaints of users are not considered criticism, there are complaints for everything in the world. ⌠Yellow up⌡ 15:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly!... and the articles should note the complaints. - hmwith talk 19:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

If I write in a forum that my dog leaves hair on my couch, and I see two other people writing it in forums, should this information be added to Dog? Complaints shouldn't be in articles, only criticism from significant sites. ⌠Yellow up⌡ 20:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

That's the most irrelevant comparison that I have ever heard. If it was about dog's shedding, and there was an article about shedding dogs, and there are many discussions about how much a certain amount of dog sheds, maybe one could mention how owners say that dog sheds a lot. As someone said before, Windows Vista has complaints. Anything that it reputable enough has complaints. Good luck reaching a compromise! - hmwith talk 21:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that the German and French Wikipedia versions of this page do discuss complaints and issues. The German page discusses the transition to freeware and the loss of community. The text roughly reads:

Babylon was published 1997. The program spread fast, since thousands users provided and for the free Download offered world-wide free dictionaries to numerous areas. For some years the program however only available offered, at the same time function older versions no longer. Nevertheless the dictionaries and listings provided free of charge by the users are offered further by the company Babylon. That access to it is possible however only for buyers of the program. This led to substantial annoying in the Community, because freiwillige was used the commitment of the users for commercial purposes. The Babylon translator lost its earlier meaning by its commercialization.(http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylon_Translator, translation: [[7]]).

The French page mentions the inclusion of spyware:

Les premières versions de Babylon étaient gratuites.

Ensuite, il y a eu des versions publiciel pour lesquelles l'utilisateur avait le choix entre payer une licence ou activer une publicité sélective. Afin d'afficher des publicités sélectives, le logiciel espion New.net s'installait en même temps que Babylon.http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylon

Note the lack of references in both. Could it be that these problems are common knowledge, like how the sky is blue? Also note the lack of resistance in these pages in calling a spade a spade. Stay tuned for quick revisions to the French and German Wikipedia entries. Teguiste 06:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Returned criticism section with source. In my opinion, the qustionable act of including spyware with software deserves to be noted. Teguiste 09:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. However I think it should be renamed to 'Controversy' because the criticism was not received directly from major sources (some sources were quoting users criticizing it, and I guess it may not count as criticism according to Wikipedia's policies). I assume it was simply not popular enough to receive direct criticism. --Coptervibes 21:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

EDIT WARS removing sections because you don't like them is not helpful.Teguiste 21:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The article should note that microsoft themselves classified it as adware, but was since "modified... so as to remove the undesired behavior" [1], and has had malware[8][9][10] bundled with it.
Not to mention how hard it is to completely get rid of, enough to have third-party uninstallers made for it.--Ikalpo (talk) 20:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Request for Comment: development and editing of entry

I have made a number of additions to this entry (as have others) only to have them reverted or by member Yellow Up. This member seems especially sensitive to any criticism of the program that is considered. In my opinion, Yellow Up has become somewhat proprietary of this entry.Teguiste 08:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Critisicm section isn't encyclopedic, it's original research, deductions from Google charts and forums, etc. Version History is irrelevant too. Company Information is already in the article. An article about a program is not a place to advertise similar programs. I am not proprietary of this article, however it is in my watch list and I am an experienced user of Wikipedia (especially he:) so I do know what I am talking about. ⌠Yellow up⌡ 14:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Tequiste that a criticism section is appropriate in just about any encyclopedia article (in a perfect world, this criticism would be perfectly integrated throughout the entire article); I concur with Yellow up that the criticism must meet verifiability and NOR standards. So yes, article could have criticism section, no, proposed section is currently not good enough. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Orphic (talk • contribs) 05:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

Babylon Translator is an interesting example of what happened when a community based project became private. In 2000 it was one of the most popular downloads. Today, hardly anyone speaks of it. Source material is hard to find, mostly because no-one has review it since 2001 or so. As well, the community has evaporated. There are some interesting lessons here and I think Wikipedia is a good place to document them. In regards to sources, criticisms are opinions and there is no better place to understand how a user base is responding to a program than forums. As to seniority, as far as I know, you are a 10 year old using your mother's computer. Does it really matter if you claim to "be experienced"? Teguiste 14:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

And as far as I know you work for a competitor. Obviously free software are more popular than software which cost money. Wikipedia is definitely not the place to document what you said, that's original thoughts. ⌠Yellow up⌡ 15:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Coming from RFC: There is absolutely nothing wrong with having a criticism section in a Wikipedia article on software; however, it should be based primarily on independent reviews (with links to them online, if possible). The sources cited in this version are not really adequate. The Google Trends page merely shows the fact that Google translator has become much more popular than Babylon over the last years, without any indication of why. And message forums are not considered reliable sources. So, go out and find published reviews written by professional reviewers, and use those as your sources. —An gr 15:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

There are two sources here that need to be delt with seperately. The first is an old (and now removed) user's forum on Babylon.com. While not a scientific article (or the like) it does reflect how users felt about the software at the time, which I think comes out in the wording of my contribution. In this case, it is a closed forum from six or seven years ago. If truth be told, it could be considered a primary source. The guidelines cited on your link reliable sources suggest the following standards should be used:

Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.[11]

Therefore, in my reading of these guidelines, my use of forums can be considered entirely appropriate.

In regards to my use of Google Trends, I wrote something akin to "Babylon has lost popularity relative to other products". I think Google Trends reflects that nicely. Of course Google Trends doesn't show a why of this happening and I don't think I explicitly wrote a "why". Building a Wiki entry is gradual. Moreover, when someone is constantly deleting one's contributions there is a limit to the investment one is willing to give. Teguiste 16:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree. WP:RS says "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." That simply does not apply to users' forums. As for Google Trends, it does immediately raise flags when you're using a Google tool to show that another Google tool is more popular than Babylon. It would be much better if you could find an independent, impartial third party source to show it. —An gr 09:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input.WP:RSis a guideline, not a strict set of rules. In this case we are talking about a community based research project--not unlike Wikipedia--that was made into a fee-paying service overnight. Like Wikipedia, people voice their opinion on forums, making them a living witness to processes and events; in other words a primary source. In any event, perhaps you should look at the common sense rule [12]which might give those who are being finicky about this something to chew over. (I know, ignore all rules is the official policy, some of which I also think apply here.) About use of Google Trends, I highly doubt if Google has any motive in rigging the results; if i just used "Babylon Translator" the results would still show a declining interest. Teguiste 12:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion

Speedy deletion is not appropriate for this article. If deletion might be appropriate, I would recommend listing the article on articles for deletion. Speedy delete tags are not for forcing discussion regarding deletion. AfD is the appropriate venue to generate and review a deletion debate. Internet forums are not a reliable published source. Even blogs and websites are usually not considered appropriate sources. Internet forums are simply not proper sources. Vassyana 19:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that "usually not condered appropriate sources" is a key phrase. Indeed, the appropriateness of forums has been discussed elsewhere, ending usually with a hung jury. Here's a good example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/archive5#Bulletin_boards.2C_wikis.2C_and_posts_to_Usenet. In any case, my addition attempted to illustrate user frustration with the changes that occured at babylon.com between approx. 2001-2002. There are numerous complaints ranging from the quality of upgrades, the abandonment of freeware and the appropriation of glossaries and dictionaries created by the community. (Here's one example, signed from someone at IBM: [[13]])In other words, it isn't just one lunatic ranting, but the community complaining. If this isn't a primary source, than I don't know what is.

On another note, when will it be possible to start working on a version that doesn't sound like a pitch for the company? Teguiste 20:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It was up for deletion, but Yellow removed the tag... more than once. Note that I came in as a THIRD OPINION too! - hmwith talk 19:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It was never up for an AfD. ⌠Yellow up⌡ 20:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It was up for deletion: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Babylon_%28program%29&oldid=128247883 - hmwith talk 20:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Yellow said that "many admins said there is no need for criticism section if there is no real criticism!" That's not everything about which I am talking. This article simply reads like an advertisement to me. It sounds like the company itself wrote it to promote the product. If you don't agree with me, then delete the template. That's just my opinion on it. - hmwith talk 20:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge

I've suggested that this page be merged with Babylon Ltd. Most of the information is duplicated--Babylon Ltd perhaps has more information on the software than this page. Any opinions? Can someone help?? Teguiste 15:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Support. I'm in favor of merging this article into Babylon Ltd. Even then, the combined article would qualify for an AfD nomination, in my opinion. But I'd say merge them first and clean up, then we'll see. -Amatulic 21:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Support per nom and above. - hmwith talk 21:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Support, merging Babylon Ltd. into Babylon program. ⌠Yellow up⌡ 11:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Why you put an entire company article into the program's? That doesn't make sense. - hmwith talk 12:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment:I actually agree with Yellow. It is the program that is of principal interest, not the company.Teguiste 14:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Response: Well, I retract my comment. You're right. It's not like the company's known for anything else, is it? - hmwith talk 17:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Amount of information

I think the article needs to have less information about the company and more information about the program. --Coptervibes 23:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The information about the company was apparently the result of a merge from another article. Encyclopedia articles should be encyclopedic.

That said, I think this article is borderline worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. I will not nominate it for deletion (yet) but I have tagged it with a {{notability}} for now. The lead paragraph certainly fails to establish any notabilty for this product, leaving me thinking that it's fairly obscure and doesn't warrant an article about it. -Amatulic 16:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Notability

I have removed the notability tag, as its notability is easily establish in the sentence "By 2000, the company claimed over 4 million users [6]and the program was ranked among the most popular downloads by ZDnet France, AOL Germany, and Tucows, among others.[7]" -Oreo Priest 12:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The tag still belongs there because the lead section doesn't explain why the product or the company is notable. -Amatulic 17:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

which languages are supported in the Machine translation feature ?

I have prepared this article - Comparison of Machine translation applications but I can't find any list of the Machine Translation languages which Babylon can translate between.. if anybody has this information please fill it in the table. Acidburn24m 23:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

GFDL incompatible

http://www.babylon.com/display.php?id=61&tree=145&level=2

--Connel MacKenzie - wikt 07:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

default

It is quite scandalous that searching for "Babylon" in wikipedia defaults to this page, and not to the (slightly more important for an encyclopedia) ancient civilization. But I don't know how to fix this - anyone know? Johncmullen1960 (talk) 18:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Babylon 8

There is a new version of Babylon. --84.108.122.207 (talk) 16:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Business Model

I don't understand what the business model is. It's told here that the program is converted to a payware, but when you visit their website, there is nothing about paying. (Except for business customers) It says free download everywhere. Do you download for free and use after paying or what? Enisbayramoglu (talk) 11:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a free *trial* download 88.23.221.116 (talk) 23:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

rename to Babylon (software application)

it is a software application. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.218.157.69 (talk) 07:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Negatives hard to read

I came to this article in order to learn what was good and bad about the product. It turns out that in order to see the negatives one must look them up under the article's history tab, using the talk page for clues as to where they are. This makes for very inconvenient reading---it would be a lot easier to read them if they were put back.

There is the additional concern that the negatives were obviously removed by someone from the product's country of origin. Had this been a country with a population of 1.3 billion this would have a 0.8 probability of WP:NPOV, but for a country with a population of 7 million (the case here) the probability of WP:NPOV is more like 0.999. Both probabilities are unacceptably high, and any such removal of criticisms should be judged by more independent parties. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 22:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

It would seem that the company cleaned up the article (again) for the benefit of their image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.23.221.116 (talk) 23:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The above may be correct. This thing is most certainly insidious malware. It installs itself without permission and hides very well, and in my experience, cannot be removed.The article needs to be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.82.125.29 (talk) 14:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, even when deinstalling the program (which is already not easy), it can still leave things behind like a start-page redirect to the babylon search home page. --Zaluzar (talk) 17:13, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Downloads, etc.

An editor has repeatedly deleted mention of the company's downloads world record, etc., from the article. I see no appropriate rationale for that, and have therefore restored it.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The info is dodgy. We have only one local newspaper report for it. If it was actually true, you'd be able to find it on the guiness site William M. Connolley (talk) 21:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

This is so lame. I can't believe an experienced editor like you can get sucked into a dumb edit war like this. Globes is not a 'local newspaper' but rather Israel's most prestigious financial newspaper and an RS. If you are want more references, ask for more. Someone can email Guinness to bug them to update their site for us. If you do not trust Globes, take it to RS noticeboard.--Shuki (talk) 21:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Globes is not a local paper. A local paper is a paper for "town x". It is a national paper. Clearly, an RS. Plus, the information is reflected on a good number of other sites: see ^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]

No reason has been articulated for deleting RS-supported material.

Nor is there any explanation, even a tortured one, as to why reporting on a world record, referenced by a high-level national paper RS, could conceivably be "undue". That's a fairly odd assertion.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

If it is indeed a record, as you claim, it will be on the guiness site. I notice you've carefully avoided addressing that rather obvious problem William M. Connolley (talk) 22:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what their site lists, and whether it is comprehensive (many such sites are not, so that people will buy their books), but in any event it is typical at wikipedia to source information to an RS. Which is what we have here. If you wish to say "x reported", that is fine with me, though I don't actually believe it is necessary where you have an RS, and others may be of that view..--Epeefleche (talk) 00:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

You are claiming that it is RS because it is "national"? Okay, then. Israels #1 political enemy, Iran, is bound to have national papers. Are they RS too?

The record itself is not undue; the whole nonsense about judges coming to "crown" the thing is undue. And let's not forget that you are merely throwing the information there incoherently and with no regard for cohesion. The only specification of these contributions is their flashy look. Surprise: Wikipedia is not an advertisement platform. Fleet Command (talk) 22:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Fleet -- are you doubting that Globes is an RS? If that is the case, I would suggest that you raise the issue at the RS noticeboard. The point addressed was the difference between "local" papers and "national" papers. This is not, as was suggested, a "local" paper, in the sense that the term is used on wp ... that term is used for things like The Midville Gazette. This is Israel's version of The Wall Street Journal.

As to the usage of the phrase "crown", if you have a different term you prefer I would be open to hearing what it is. The deletion of the entire matter, covered in an RS, is what I took to be outside the scope of appropriate editing. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

You just don't want to get the point, do you? I said WP:UNDUE, not "wrong words".

Everyone knows that number of downloads is a useless piece of stat that is only meaningful for a network administrator who wants setup service infrastructure. Otherwise, it is meaningless. Everyone also knows that unscrupulous companies have in the past used this number to advertise their product, implying that "our product is downloaded a lot, so our product is good." That's pure nonsense. For one thing, many might have downloaded it, tested it for a while, and then uninstalled it, throwing it aside. Also, there might be a lot of downloads just because there are a lot of product updates and existing customers are forced to updated their product. (This is especially true for subscription-based products).

Since the number of download is so meaningless, as I explained, it should not be over-covered. More than one sentence about it is over-coverage.

Besides, I do see that you put all this overcoverage in the lead section, disregarding coherence, cohesion and neutrality of point of view, not to mention that you supply a wrong edit summary. The one thing that is obvious about your contribution is that it is flashy and boastful. Wikipedia is not an advertisement platform.

As for the reliable source issue, you are intentionally avoiding the main points: (1) The source has only quoted Babylon Inc. which is not a reliable source. (2) Globes source can safely be replaced by the the official World Record website, but you avoid this either. Fleet Command (talk) 07:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Just FYI, all. I've suppressed a comment here per policy, that had already been redacted by another editor. Sorry if it breaks continuity of your discussion a bit - Alison ^❤ 04:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

That is interesting. So, does anyone in this discussion have a COI to declare? The defence of the guiness stuff is rather odd William M. Connolley (talk) 07:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand what's wrong with the source. Globes is a national scope financial newspaper, not local . It is a reliable secondary source. Holding a Guinness record for the number of downloads is a noteworthy fact. It was also published elsewhere, for example [14]. Marokwitz (talk) 08:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

None of us objected Globes in general by much. It is Epeefleche's distraction tactic: He is trying to make belief that we say so, while our discussion is entirely something different. We are saying WP:UNDUE, WP:NOTADVERT, WP:MOS, WP:NPOV and WP:DR. Basically, Epeefleche is saying that since Globes is RS, he can do whatever he likes to the article.

The only objection that is incurred against using Globe as a source is that it is directly quoting Babylon Inc. Although Globes might be RS and Babylon Inc. has really said these, I do not think that Babylon Inc. is RS. But I say again: there are other issues. Fleet Command (talk) 08:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

That's what a reliable Secondary source means. Two sources (Globes and JP) were presented. Both have editorial oversight to determine which topics are notable, and employ fact checkers to verify that lies are not published. This material is not advertising, not undue weight (awards are more than balanced by criticism), and is perfectly neutral. Wikipedia is not censored. Stop edit warring - you don't have consensus to remove this material. Marokwitz (talk) 08:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

It appears I must be frank: In face of WP:UNDUE, all sources can go to hell. Fleet Command (talk) 09:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Please watch your language. As I mentioned awards are more than balanced by criticism, there is nothing undue here. Marokwitz (talk) 09:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Balanced? Do you think I have never seen the article? There is not such thing as a criticism there. In the mean time, the Awards section discusses about things that are neither awards nor about Babylon programs. I watch my language, you watch yours. Fleet Command (talk) 09:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the consensus is fairly clear. Between this string and the recent article edits, four editors by my count have indicated that they think that RS-supported material that Fleet is repeatedly deleting is appropriate. Fleet opened a witiquette string, at which a fifth editor expressed a like mind. On the other side, we have accusations about COI (which led to Fleet's comments being suppressed, per policy). And statements by two editors, variously, that in their opinion the RS-supported material is "dodgy", or that a national publication is a "local" paper, or that the RS-supported text is undue, or (most recently) a list of sundry wp guidelines that one editor appears to believe to be relevant to his protestations -- though the applicability of those guidelines to the RS-supported text is not a view shared by the consensus of editors, as discussed above. I would ask that Fleet stop edit-warring, and respect consensus. Again, to allay his concerns, if he wants to attribute what we have in the text to the parties that are the sources of the information, that is fine with me personally here, though I see no real need for it. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow! You have broken the record of lying in one post. Congrats. Which consensus? Between you and yourself? You elude answering WP:UNDUE concerns. You advertise. The consensus is to advertise? WP:NOTADVERT is one of the pillars of Wikipedia; if the consensus is to advertise, the consensus is void. Which COI accusations are you talking about? Can you supply a diff? And which fifth editor? Only four have participated. Yet none of them contested me that you are edit warring. Fleet Command (talk) 09:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Calm down and stop accusing people of lying and advertising. Your uncivil and emotionally attached behavior just makes your arguments seem even less convincing. And you are very much guilty of edit warring, stop accusing others.Marokwitz (talk) 09:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Fleet -- I stand by what I said before. None of it was a lie. You can look at the editor comments in this string (including those of mine and those of Marokwitz), at the editors who have reverted you (or who you reverted) on this article (including Gilabrand and Shuki; see also this deletion, among others, and at the comments in the witiquette string you started (where the fifth editor opined that "The article has a "download records" section that covers this topic; its content simply does not go into enough detail. All the details in the second paragraph should simply be added to that section, and summarized with maybe a sentence in the lead."). Your views, repeated above and clearly strongly held, have not attracted consensus support among those editors who simply do not see the violations of the indicated guidelines that you assert exist. The consensus is simply that no such alleged violations exist. As to the COI accusations, they are the ones that a sysop just warned you about here, which led to your comments being suppressed by the sysop. Please do not edit war, as has been requested of you above by another editor I see. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, this statement of yours contradicts the one that you said before, not to mention that both are unsupported. Enough of this distraction tactics. I have contested your edits per WP:DUE, WP:MOS and WP:NOTADVERT. Yet you have failed to address them. Even if I was purely evil, foul-mouthed and persistent, you still are not allowed to violate the aforementioned policies. Fleet Command (talk) 09:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

As for reverting those edits: Either their edit summaries are not true or false. If true, then they are different edits and I am well allowed to contest multiple different edits. If they are false, then they are disruptive edits and again I am allowed to revert disruptive edits. Still, I have not reverted this edit, which means I am not edit warring. Fleet Command (talk) 09:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

As to your first comments: 1) I do not, and by the aforementioned comments and edits it is clear that a consensus of the editors focusing on this issue do not, find the indicated insertion of RS-supported text to be violative of wp guidelines. In our view, those policies are not being violated. 2) IMHO, your editing has constituted edit warring. I would simply respectfully ask that you not engage in further edit warring, and editing against consensus. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Whenever you decided to stop these deceitful distraction tactics and negotiate a consensus call me. Fleet Command (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you again accuse me of deceit. I'm not being deceitful. And as to consensus, we've had an extended discussion, and input from seven editors, and it appears that the consensus of view is not in accord with your view. I'm not sure what there is to "negotiate". You simply see guideline violations where others do not. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

FYI -- If anyone is awaiting further input from Fleet on this string, please note that he has been blocked for 36 hours for edit-warring on this article.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Why in the world is there no mention of the uninstall issues and the way the program lingers on systems like Malware?!! This is by far one of the most ethically void companies I have had the misfortune to encounter. I will never buy anything they produce.

April 3rd 2012: There should be some mention of the fact that the 'popularity' of Babylon just might be due to the fact that it comes as an automatic install with many open source (aka otherwise free) software products (like PsPad). While it may be true that Microsoft no longer considers this software mall-ware, there are still loads of users who complain of how hard it is to uninstall after it has been installed as an extra by software that people actually CHOOSE to install. There is a reason this software only has 3 out of 5 stars on CNET and that IS a reliable source.

This article is Blatant advertizing, attempting to mask the fact that the program is pure malware.

This program has infected mine and millions of other computers, it blocks other search engines, loads advertizements, adware and plugins, monitors what I do, as is about to cost me hundreds of dollars to have my hard drive cleared and replaced, forcing me to use a public library to access anything, Google gives over 3,290,000 results on the website being used for invasive purposes, and to come on here and see our encyclopedia defending this horrible destructive piece of spyware, bragging of the awards it won for getting more people to adopt it as there search engine than any other website, which by the way is by force, you dont get a choice, you click on something its disguised as, and boom your stuck with it, once you have it you cant get rid of it, because it overrides your power to decide. Don't anyone tell me WP:Forum, this is factual and needs to be mentioned in detail, to say its good is a bold lie, not just a minor "Microsoft once labeled it malware, but changed its mind". This article misleads the reader into thinking the website has done no harm, I would testify against that. The article needs to be rewritten or deleted, I'm in a fury over the program, and will not put up with this blatant advertizing of a malicious program on my favorite website. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 04:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Does not seem like you are going to write fairly, neutrally or in a balanced manner. Сол-раз (talk) 23:20, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Fine I wont write anything, but this article is a misleading advertizement, the program is intrusive controlling and destructive malware, I could rant but I wont, I wont fight anymore on this website, this would be the twentieth time I hopelessly attempt to fight a losing battle, and I wont do that, when two idiots stuck in there ways fight for there position neither win, and that's what Ive done for three years on this website, just being an stubborn fool who argues with other stubborn fools, I'm losing my home computer anyway, which by the way is at the hand of the website you sir are defending, I might as well get rid of this account while I'm at it, I cant edit much from this library computer, so Babylon wins, it has taken my computer and conquered this website I've always considered my favorite above all others. I cant get a new computer right now, I cant check my watch list enough, and Ive been yelled at repeatedly for the last three years on this website, maybe I need to spend more time outside in the sweltering desert heat, either way the point of me staying is is moot, there is no use for me to stay, hell I know fifty users who would be overjoyed to see me leave, they'd finally be rid of me. Id need to think before officially quitting, but I probably will, Ive considered it in the past but looks like Babylon will enforce it for me, well goodbye. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 01:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Just to back up. This is malware. You cant remove it in normal ways on Windows system. I know! i am currently - as in RIGHT NOW (and the past two hours) - trying very hard. A simple uninstal in control panel gives me a few seconds of waiting then a popup asking me if i would like Babylon to make changes on my computer...NO!! i want it gone! Thats why i clicked "uninstall"...Try download it and see for yourself if you don't believe my word - but don't say i did not warn you. So far nothing i did got rid of it completely. I got it through some other program, and did not notice this little baby gained its way into my system too. Its a pain in the ass, and the fact this problem is not at all mentioned in the article giving this malware creditability on Wikipedia is truly disheartening. Someone do something. The entire article seems biased already and in my eyes deserves deletion as it is - or VERY heavy rewriting. People like me trying frantically to search the web to get rid of this thing lands on the Wikipedia page and gets told about its rewards?? wtf?? Just a few random links on the problem: http://www.techimo.com/forum/networking-internet/268235-help-remove-babylon-search-malware.html, http://forums.spybot.info/showthread.php?t=61869, http://forums.malwarebytes.org/index.php?showtopic=107066 and so on and so on... --Malene (talk) 11:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes the problem is that the article leaves thinking that this software is flawless (awards, "popularity"..) hiding the fact the majority of users completely abhors it. (Some worse practices you can do in business : censorship, pseudo lies, malware, annoying ads etc, revoked licences..) Pure bad faith and they justify behind the fact "not sourced"..

This article would need deep changes or to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.178.241.141 (talk) 11:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Just to echo an important point that some others have brought up: the article is flawed in that it does not make clear (in truth, it appears to try to obscure the fact) that the Babylon search stuff is pure malware. I just spent a few hours removing it from my parent's machine so this stings a bit. I believe the software meets all the normal criteria of today's malware: 1) its installer concealed its true purpose from the user (my parents had no idea they had installed it, let alone what it was supposedly for or what it actually did) 2) it redirects a user's web traffic in the process of doing whatever random thing it purports to do 3) it interferes with the legitimate use of the computer (in some ways a blessing, since this alerted my parents to its presence) 4) it is very difficult and time consuming to completely uninstall. This is terrible stuff and wikipedia shouldn't attempt to legitimize it in any way. Just google "remove babylon" if you have any doubts about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.222.178 (talk) 04:48, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The comment by 76.189.222.178 is correct, because there have been a large number of complaints about the Babylon search toolbar behaving in the way described above. The problem is that forums, search engine results etc are not reliable sources. At the moment, the article has WP:NPOV issues, because parts of it read like a hymn of praise to Babylon software without mentioning any of the criticism over the toolbar issue. It should be a priority for the article to find some suitable sourcing on the toolbar.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The concerns appear valid. And yet our article doesn't even mention the word "malware", which is rather odd. User:Сол-раз removed a malware section [15] for no very obvious reason William M. Connolley (talk) 08:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I deleted those lines for a number of reasons. One of which is that I am convinced they were encouraging vandalism to this page, and now that those lines are back, I just received this on my own page [16] as well. Сол-раз (talk) 15:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

"a number of reasons" eh? But what were those reasons? Deleting content that vandals don't like seems like a very bad idea indeed. Nor do we delete content because IPs attack you personally (if you find that too much to deal with, please raise it at ANI) William M. Connolley (talk) 07:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Echoing the above comments, while I am not reporting my experiences as if Wikipedia is a forum, I am deeply distressed that an entity that engages in such intrusive, manipulative and almost vicious behavior would have such a page on Wikipedia. Here's hoping it changes very soon. Steroid Maximus (talk) 14:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Me too. Babylon is definitely malware. It hijacks all the browsers on the computer with its search, and is nearly impossible to uninstall. I had to use the Windows tool to back up to a previous version to remove it. A nightmare. JoshuSasori (talk) 03:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I hope I didn't get into this edit war, but the product is definitely not 'pure malware'. 'Pure malware' is vicious and parasitical. In contrast, Babylon is used daily by millions for productive reasons, home and office. It seems that there are some people who have had bad experiences with it, but this does not warrant a witchhunt on the article page, and the talk page is also NOTFORUM. I've had bad issues with adaware recently wasting a few frustrating hours of my time trying to revert the damage it did, but doesn't mean the company is malicious. FWIW, I now see the edit war and the kneejerk reverts are also reverting some improved parts of the article so a copyedit is needed instead. --Shuki (talk) 08:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Although Wikipedia is not a forum, there are also concerns about potential conflict of interest editing in this article. Any editor linked to Babylon Software should register an account and declare an interest on the talk page (I am not accusing anyone in particular here).--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

"'Pure malware' is vicious and parasitical" That describes what Babylon does. To get rid of it you need to take special measures to stop it running and that - in software terms - is "vicious and parasitical". For anyone like me, who uses a computer for work and who does not expect to take 'special measures' when experiencing unwanted computer activity, it is a very serious matter. You company may not wish to be malicious but that is what is happening. You say "[it] doesn't mean the company is malicious" - how do you know? If it isn't malicious it must be ignorant or stupid; I do not want software from a malicious, a stupid or an ignorant organisation on my computer. Are there other adjectives that describe Babylon in a better light? --Damorbel (talk) 08:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Citations for malware

What is required is a citation from a reputable source that Babylon is malware. I found a few links:

There are a lot more links about this. Unfortunately a lot of the advice given about how to remove Babylon is not OK. Any comments? JoshuSasori (talk) 03:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Babylon malaware?

I tried to edit the malware page, I added something. I am not a very experienced editor, but seriously. It installed itself, and infested my computer. Feel free to remove/edit the statement I made on the malware page. (not you Babylon company) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.7.113.192 (talk) 20:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Babylon is total fucking malware. I unchecked every box, refused every intrusion it offered, and BOOM I find it has installed itself anyway. Oh and not just installed itself, infected firefox to the bone. It is utterly inextricable using conventional means. One must dig into Firefox system files via about:config and manual expunge each hidden piece of malware. That the wikipedia site doesn't even mention this shows gross whitewashing probably on the part of babylon themselves. Wikipedia, so something about this shit!

Why is Babylon software not classified as malaware? My computer is infested with it; I might consider it as useful if it did not automatically install itself everywhere.

I do not need it and I cannot get rid of it. It overrides my settings in an obscure way that seems impossible to be corrected.

If the software is acknowledged on Wikipedia then surely there is room for information how to remove it, regardless of being accepted by Microsoft.

Does anybody know how to remove this stuff? (I now have Windows 7 and everyday I regret it.) --Damorbel (talk) 09:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I have the same problem and ask the same questions — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.115.6.129 (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

My GF has installed this (it was a trojan, she thought she was downloading a free Hunger Games audiobook. It is malware. But the page is being watched by the Israeli people who are raking in the cash from this dishonesty. 203.117.110.7 (talk) 00:20, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how disputes like this get resolved, but if Babylon Software are genuinely responsible for the Search Babylon Toolbar browser hijacker, Wikipedia needs to tell the truth about it (as documented elsewhere on this page, but also verifiable by simple Google searches or a search for "babylon search" (without quotes) on Twitter). If Wikipedia cannot tell the truth about this program, there is absolutely no point in Wikipedia continuing to exist (or soliciting for donations). (BishopHerman (talk) 16:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC))

Just search on Google how to get rid of Babylon Search. There are hundreds of articles about it, and I'm guessing that millions are being infected with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.234.209.247 (talk) 15:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Added some more information in the malware section

I felt that the malware section as it was gave an unbalanced view on the concerns raised by a lot of users and contributers to this page. Added some info from various sources I could find. Improvements are welcome. Let's see how long it can survive.. Hongaar (talk) 17:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I have been watching this page and talkpage for a while, since I used to be a license paying registered Babylon user a few years ago. I even posted on this page a while back a long story about my experiences with the company/software, and my post was immediately deleted by an editor alleging the page is not a forum. If you are good at looking at WP archives you should still be able to see my post somewhere. If, in addition to collecting examples of malware behavior by the software, you or someone else here is also interested in collecting users experiences in dealing with the company for support or customer service, I'd be glad to provide examples. warshy ^talk 17:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Re this edit. It is too much like personal commentary and analysis to be encyclopedic writing style.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Translation vs. Search

The malware section focuses on Babylon's search toolbar, while nearly all of the rest of the article focuses on the translation / dictionary software. It would be good to know what the relationship is between these two applications. My sense is that right now most people know babylon only through its search engine, so it would be good to mention that search engine in the lead. 68.9.178.66 (talk) 12:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Babylon virus/malware

Let us tell it the way it is, FACT, Babylon is a virus that infects your browser forcing its way onto your browser and allowing no easy change. I am an experienced computer user and it took me an hour to finally remove this garbage. "Old" methods of removal found do not work, because the developers of this rubbish circumvent the repairs and only drastic measures can be used to remove this garbage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.59.251 (talk) 11:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

This has been causing edits and reverts for some time. There have been *many* complaints about the search toolbar finding its way on to a PC and being hard to uninstall (not the translation software itself), but surprisingly little in the way of reliable sourcing. As for some WP:OR advice, Spybot – Search & Destroy will remove it, but a full scan takes time. Remarkably, it cannot be uninstalled by the usual methods. Perhaps someone from the company could explain why this is.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:38, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

NPOV is not here

Any neutral assessment of the Babylon Search tool, which is easily obtained on line, would call it malicious. I have just spent a great deal of time removing it from a small school. There's no excuse for endorsing malware as this article does; Wikipedia has become complicit in the deception. If the Babylon (software) is not the same as the Babylon (malware) that is infecting computers, there needs to be some means of telling them apart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.153.180.229 (talk) 19:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Most of the complaints relate to the search toolbar being hard to remove from a browser, not the actual translation software. The toolbar is commonly found bundled as third party adware in other pieces of software (screenshot). The article still needs more sourcing on this issue.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Babylon is malware

Do a Google search for "Babylon", and ignore results about the ancient city. Or search for "Babylon software". You will find hits for the website of the company that distributes it, and one for this Wikipedia article, and many stating that it is malware and explaining how it can be removed. It is shameful that Wikipedia has been subverted in this way by a shill of the malware distributor. Maproom (talk) 20:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

This edit was reverted. The sourcing does not say that "literally millions" of people have complained, and saying that it has "allegedly" won awards is POV. There is also the longstanding issue that message boards discussing Babylon are not a RS.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Granted that message boards are not a RS, are tech blogs also off the table? (See [23].) If you look at Wikipedia's page for Browser hijacker, no sources are cited except blogs and forums. It's not clear to me what "traditionally" reliable sources actually exist to document that a given program is malware, apart from forums and blogs. 192.138.178.128 (talk) 20:33, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

It is interesting that most of the removal of critical comment in this article is being performed by an anonymous IP address in the Babylon_IL netblock. Meanwhile a simple Google search reveals the widespread depth of irritation with this software that is being suppressed here. Wikipedia readers are not being well served in this case. Ralphbk (talk) 09:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

This is a highly suspicious program

I have looked at tutorials on how to remove this program. I have uninstalled it from programs (which required a captcha to uninstall) and changed my default search engine to google. That should be enough to uninstall it and remove the searchbar. Instead it remains. Apparently, I have to remove it using windows task manger and editing the registry. That is extremely ridiculous. The current malware section does not provide a warning about how difficult it is to remove the program. It is indisputable about how difficult it is to uninstall and wipe the search bar from the computer. It is not an opinion. It would be most appropriate to say "The program's search bar is difficult to uninstall".

Mazman34340 (talk) 02:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Your claim is supported by MyWOT.com. Here are their most up-voted user comments on Babylon:

"Was a good company then they tricked people into loading uninstallable malware. Avoid them!"
"Offer free download, which just is a useless trial. There are much better resources in the net for FREE. This company should be banned from the Internet."
"I've tried numerous times to uninstall it from my computer, so I haven't been successful. Also, it seems to dominate my toolbar. So far I have not been able to remove it. I mistakenly , while downloading the new Firefox, hit to install Babylon toolbar; now it won't leave. Annoying!"
"A free, online translation service. At my school, someone downloaded it and it hijacked my browsers homepage. Many popular anti-spyware websites detect this as spyware. I don't know why or how it got on the computer at school, but I don't think anyone downloaded it."
"adds toolbar which is detected as sypyware"

Maproom (talk) 13:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The Babylon software was in a sneaky way installed in my computer by taking another identity. And up to now I can not remove ist; it is hiding ist name. The software is stealing information from my computer (I can see that because as I do a search, the first answers are often related to commercial products of Babylon, which is only possible if they change my search request). In my country the maximum penalty for such criminal actions is a sentence of four years (that implies it is a very serious crime). I will request the justicial authorities to prosecute the managing board of this company. I hope that extradition to the justicial authorities in my country possible is.77.171.38.121 (talk) 21:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Malware Removal

I note that Babylon have now documented how to remove their browser-hijacking toolbar:

- http://www.babylon.com/info/uninstall

However, I haven't yet been able to locate any public apology for the use of the browser-hijacking tactics themselves. Personally, I think that issuing such an apology would be a better first step towards rescuing their reputation than their current technique of repeated, anonymous (and not so anonymous) vandalizing of this article. Ralphbk (talk) 17:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Malware Issues - Browser Hijacker note

I've added a note (in as neutral a voice as I could manage considering the time it has cost me to remove this software from my wife's PC) to Babylon_(software)#Malware_issues regarding the browser hijacker behaviour that the Babylon search toolbar undoubtedly exhibits. The article I have cited is the most serious and complete that I could locate (amongst the many forums full of complaining browser users). Significantly, it also includes a reply from Babylon Support staff themselves, with advice on the shockingly complicated removal process.

If this note gets reverted, removed or otherwise substantially changed in meaning - especially by anonymous Babylon IP user 95.142.23.66 - I shall certainly escalate this matter. Ralphbk (talk) 12:55, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

This edit was reverted because 95.142.23.66 appears to have an undeclared conflict of interest. The description of the Babylon search toolbar as easy to install inadvertently is backed up by multiple sources on the web, with adware bundled installers like this one needed to be handled with care.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Re this edit. Microsoft Security Essentials will not prevent Babylon from being installed, but other programs including Spybot – Search & Destroy and avast! will, as it is regarded as a PUP (potentially unwanted program). It seems to be hard to add any critical material to this article, which also has COI from at least one editor.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

You seem to have reverted my edit whilst claiming it to be "because 95.142.23.66 appears to have an undeclared conflict of interest." I will assume this was a genuine mistake and will restore my edit myself. Ralphbk (talk) 14:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Ralphbk

No, IanMacM did not do that. You are seeing the previous edition. Gilabrand removed your edit, along with many other erroneous edits. Now I don't mean to comment on a person, but a person's edits. (Contribution vs. contributor.) For example, downsizing of the screenshot to 250 was wrong. 300 is the standard size. Or raising the article class to C was again wrong; I plainly see that article fails to meet some of the C prerequisites. But maybe a checkuser should check for the association of Gilabrand with this IP.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 16:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Lisa. Yes, we've settled this misunderstanding in User_talk:ianmacm, where I've also raised the matter of requesting a checkuser on Gilabrand. -- Ralphbk (talk) 16:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

gilabrand is a long time editor and has edited hundreds of articles here. you have every right to check, but this one is funny. is she also a patron of the anna ticho house (she edited that one). or a resident of gaza? is she in a relationship with riki gal or nochi dankner? but i do think she has read 'my name is asher lev'..... Soosim (talk) 16:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I don't know whether they did go with the checkuser or not but I think Gilabrand is definitely not the IP. Gila is not a vandal. Biased surely, but not a vandal. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 14:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Do we think a link to Google trends would be a helpful addition to this article? At least it might tell us when the malware issue is really fixed, as 95.142.23.66 would have us believe it already is. :-) -- Ralphbk (talk) 09:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Search results are not reliable sources, though. 95.142.23.66 is correct that the current Microsoft Security Essentials definitions allow Babylon to be installed, but other similar programs may not.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Of course, these Google trends results are not "search results" per se, but rather a report on search terms entered by Google Search users over time. It does provide concrete evidence of a peak of users in 2012 seeking a solution to this Babylon malware problem. Google flutrends uses similar thinking to estimate current flu activity around the world in near real-time. -- Ralphbk (talk) 07:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Whatever it is, I don't think it is acceptable for anything. Ask yourself this question: Reliable source for what? That people at a certain point in time increased their number of searches for the said term? Okay, but what does it show? That Babylon is hijacking browser? Or that a rumor has reported such and people are try to verify the rumor? Did people eventually dismiss the rumor? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 09:57, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The preferred software industry term for the Babylon toolbar would be PUP (potentially unwanted program). This is not strictly the same as malware, because consent is requested at the time of installation.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:13, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. You may be right, though definitions vary. Some say that PUP is replacement for spyware. Some say it is not but still classify it under malware along with spyware. But let's not digress. Is there are a source that says Babylon is PUP? (There is a source that says it once was, and is now included in the article.) We first need a source before discussing the wording or such "color of bike shed" issues. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:24, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

95.142.23.66 keeps complaining that the definition of Babylon as malware is wrong. The definition of malware is subjective, as Microsoft Security Essentials will not prevent installation of Babylon. Most unwanted installations of Babylon are the result of failing to uncheck boxes such as the ones found here. The problem is sourcing, because the criticism of Babylon is usually found in forums rather than reliable sources.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:23, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Those are dangerous waters that I don't want to sail! Just check the article history. The section "malware issues" at different times had different names. Besides, there has once been a now-removed sentence which I suspect has come from the Microsoft source. If you wish to indulge him, be my guest. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I am as surprised as many people that the current version of Microsoft Security Essentials allows Babylon to be installed. It is widely regarded as intrusive, and its installation is likely to be blocked by other programs, eg Spybot – Search & Destroy , avast! and Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware. Other software developers have described bundling installers with Babylon as "evil crapware", such as PassMark here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:11, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Me too. Babylon is blacklisted in our site. The source from PassMark seems a solid reliable source. At the first glance it seems a forum but both its author and publisher are verifiable. I'd search for sources about credible antimalware programs blocking Babylon myself but I am engaged in two other dispute resolutions at the time and have other engagements as well. Would you please look? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

The sourcing from PassMark is interesting, because it raises the issue of PPI (pay per install). Software developers often refuse to accept third party adware, in order to prevent their reputation from being dragged down by things like unwanted toolbars that are well nigh impossible to remove.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

May 2013 edits

Hi, guys. There we go again: Mass content deletion on malware section – again. I think someone needs to establish a consensus to prevent all this war. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The material was removed claiming blog sourcing, but the problem as ever is that some people do not want any mention of the malware issue. I was tempted to put back the material removed yesterday, but suspect that it would go for a walk again.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Me too. But did not for the same reason. (Does that mean we have a consensus?) And who says blogs are not allowed in Wikipedia? I have done a little work on a certain featured article, and from that experience, I know for sure that a blog is like any other source: Judged based on their contents, author and publisher. (Three pillars of a reliable source.)

Unfortunately, I perceive traces of blind national patriotism in Gilabrand's edits: Removing critical comments, a link to Israel's economy and changing the class of this article only for WikiProject Israel to C. Passing over the link, this article with so many problems is evidently Start class, unless WikiProject Israel has its own redefined C class (which I can't find) with a much lower quality. In any case, I do not think Wikipedia should deviate from its fundamental policy of neutrality into being the vessel of national pride for any nation. If the malware point of view has due weight, we must cover it. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 06:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Gilabrand deleted everything, including other sources than blogs, and the blog sources are by serious tech writers. Seems like a good WP contributor made a bad contribution this time. I'll fix it. Armigo (talk) 14:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

No, wait, having checked what Gilabrand is doing here on WP I retract the "good contributor" part. He's a tornado when it comes to removing any info that makes Israel look bad, even when the connection is as far-fetched as in this case. Sad. Armigo (talk) 20:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Armigo. I do understand that comment on the contributor may be necessary under limited and restricted circumstances, but do you mind if you show us what made you change mind? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 09:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Basically I realized that your observation was correct in this case and unfortunately in other cases as well: that blind patriotism sometimes outweighs Gilabrand's desire to make WP a good encyclopedia. Wish it wasn't so. Armigo (talk) 21:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Guiness World Record

I propose that the mention of the Guiness World Record be removed. The Guiness World Records organisation are encouraging such achievements for purely marketing purposes and the effort likely provoked the malware issues that have so entertained us hereabouts. (The award of the record on 22 June 2011 is indeed suspiciously followed by a peak of Google searches for a solution to the malware issues.)

What do we think? - Ralphbk (talk) 10:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

This can be traced back to a press release in July 2011. It is less than ideal if a Guinness World Record is used for marketing purposes. There is a question of whether Guinness is promoting Babylon, or Babylon is promoting Guinness. Per WP:GNG, notability is derived from reliable scondary sources that are independent of the subject.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The record claimed is for "most downloaded desktop translation software". Can the category get any more niche? Or bogus? The linked page claims that the "total was verified by two independent database consultants" but there is no mention of who these consultants are, or how they got access to the download figures of all the competing providers of downloadable desktop translation software. It's pure PR puff, isn't it? - Ralphbk (talk) 14:47, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, if such niche categories are created for marketing purposes it's unpleasant to let WP become a tool in such a PR campaign. I'd say get rid of the mention. Armigo (talk) 20:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, guys. I think there is logic in what you say. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 23:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Removed it. Thanks for the consensus. Ralphbk (talk) 07:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Irrelevant or redundant links

Hi.

I just removed a list of redundant or irrelevant link in "see also" section. The specific reasons are three:

Per WP:SEEALSO, it is not generally a good idea to repeat links in the article prose.
Links to other similar software should remain in the lists article. Otherwise, what is to stop one who like one of them from linking it here and make the article repeat the entire list in its see also section? Lists are here for a reason.
Economy of Israel? Too remote a subject. You don't see a link to Economy of United States in every article about software (say a Microsoft or Symantec software article).

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 10:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Babylon is Best Known as a Nuisance Toolbar

It may be that historically, Babylon was a legitimate piece of translation software, but if you search for it on Google or Bing, the overwelming majority of the results identify the Babylon toolbar as spyware, or a virus, or nuisance software of some kind, which requires special instructions for removal. The internet at large recognizes Babylon as primarily spyware, so why does Wikipedia bury the lead two thirds of the way down the page? It should be identified as nuisance software in the first paragraph.--Drvanthorp (talk) 13:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Classifying Babylon under Computer Security

I'm going to reclassify this article with the malware tag under WP:WikiProject Computing so that it will also be given attention by WP:WikiProject Computer Security. The Babylon toolbar is a well-known browser hijacker, so it is reasonable to classify it in a fashion that is consistent with similar software projects like Conduit (publisher network and platform) and CoolWebSearch (other well-known browser hijackers). →ozhu量 (talk·contribs) 07:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Babylon (software). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.formulavision.com/News-innews/INNEWS-19052002BABYLON.htm?gotobtn=7

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Google redirects a portion of wikipedia results via Babylon

I've noticed that since recently a small number of search results to Wikipedia articles get redirected via babylon.com, for example "Launch escape system" or "Derailment (thought disorder)". The results appear at the top of the list. This serves no apparent useful purpose. No ads are shown. J7n (talk) 01:55, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

For life?

The usual license says "for life". Try to upgrade the OS and see what happens. Etc etc. Seems a plain lie. ^[1] --81.39.105.100 (talk) 21:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

References

^ http://www.proz.com/forum/software_applications/122294-babylon_overused_licenses-page4.html

Thanks and Congratulations

I would like to thank those Wikipedia editors who have overcome the resistance of Babylon shills, and made the article reflect the fact that Babylon is primarily malware. Maproom (talk) 20:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

And Virus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.196.13.66 (talk) 22:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah!!. They are tough and souless :-) --81.39.105.100 (talk) 22:02, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

[1] [1]

[2] [2]

[3] [3]

[4] [4]

[5] ttp://www.proz.com/forum/software_applications/122294-babylon_overused_licenses-page4.html

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]