Talk:MacKeeper

MacKeeper incorrectly identified as a virus, adware or a potentially unwanted program

I added a line to the lead to say A number of anti-malware vendors incorrectly identify MacKeeper as a virus, adware or a potentially unwanted program.

I think it's quite unusual and significant that there is this misunderstanding about the nature of the software, do my fellow editors think we should state this in the lead? 119.224.17.35 (talk) 11:28, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

MacKeeper is arguably malware, despite what a page on their own website claims. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:30, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

It certainly seems to have some controversy around it. Perhaps the statement "It is known for its aggressive and pervasive advertising, and has been the subject of a class-action lawsuit for the trial version not being fully functional as advertised." or the allegation from the lawsuit that "neither the free trial nor the full registered versions of MacKeeper performed any credible diagnostic testing" (both well referenced in the article) could be promoted to the lead of this article? It seems that this is some controversy here so I'd like to seek a consensus first. 119.224.17.35 (talk) 08:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Indeed lots of controversy regarding the software itself. The only concern I have is ensuring the posted content is ultimately based upon reliable (neutral) sources. This is where things get interesting as there is no reliable source referring to the software as either a virus or malware. Review can also be mixed with some stating there are useful features and others referring to it as almost equivalent to the devil incarnate. I wouldn't believe the company website as a reliable source for the anti-malware claim largely because there is no reliable source in the article making the claim.--Labattblueboy (talk) 17:03, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I think the fact that the company that sells MacKeeper states that it is often detected as a virus, adware or potentially unwanted program is a reliable source. There are other sources in the article which confirm this (eg MalwareBytes). I would like to put that in the lead because otherwise the lead doesn't provide a balanced summary of the article. The only balance the lead gives is the weasel worded statement "while others have said that crash-prone Macs can be cured by removing MacKeeper" (unreferenced). I would like that to be swapped out for a direct statement that Malwarebytes classifies MacKeeper as a potentially unwanted program as stated, with a reference in the article. 119.224.17.35 (talk) 22:00, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Had another go at clarifying the lead, please discuss here if you think it needs changing. |||| — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.17.35 (talk) 12:44, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

No disagreement that the lead could use re-composition however its important to remember the lead is a summary of the data, not designed to give preference to any one particular source. How about something along these lines:

MacKeeper is a utility software suite for macOS released by Kromtech Alliance that has tools for cleaning, security, and optimization. Some reviewers have stated MacKeeper secures and optimizes a system while others have argued it doesn't work as advertised, has poor detection rates and is extremely difficult to uninstall. The developer of MacKeeper has also defended the software against accusations it's is a potentially unwanted program. The software is heavily promoted and has been the subject of class-action lawsuits for false advertising.

Thoughts?--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:46, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for taking the time to look at this. I don't think we can run with this statement in the lead "Some reviewers have stated MacKeeper secures and optimizes a system while others have argued it doesn't work as advertised, has poor detection rates and is extremely difficult to uninstall." - it's weasel worded "some reviewers" and "others" and without references. May I suggest we replace it with "The software distributor states that MacKeeper secures, cleans, protects and optimizes a system. The software has been heavy promoted with the vendor offering a 70% commission on initial sales to their partners. Reaction to MacKeeper has been mixed. Although there are many positive reviews of the product, MacKeeper has been referred to as a potentially unwanted program by Malwarebytes and removed during an anti-malware scan. A test by PC World found that MacKeeper identified the need for extensive corrections on brand new fully patched machines." It needs more citations but they are there in the article. 119.224.17.35 (talk) 02:41, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Keeping in mind the lead is a summary and not designed to give undue weight to any one source consequently in this context it would be unfair to characterize "others" as a weasel word given its summarizing reliable sources as a collective. Further, citations in the lead are not required for the same reason (WP:LEADCITE). This all being said, how about the following:

The software distributor states that MacKeeper secures, cleans, protects and optimizes a system. The software has been heavy promoted and has been the subject of class-action lawsuits for false advertising. Reaction to MacKeeper performance has been mixed. Although there are many positive reviews of the product, MacKeeper has been referred to as a potentially unwanted program and accused of not performing as advertised.--Labattblueboy (talk) 10:04, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the manual of style, I haven't done much editing so I'm still learning. I note that the manual says "Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article." My interpretation of that is that they are neutral with regards to references in the lead but as there seems to be a certain amount of controversy around this product I suggest that it is harmless for us to err on the side of caution and include references.

Certainly, it's very unusual indeed for an anti-malware product to be flagged as a potentially unwanted program so I think we should make sure there is a strong reference to back that up and that includes naming the anti-malware vendor which makes the accusation (eg Malwarebytes). For balance I think it's only fair that we also reference MacKeeper's denial that their product is a virus and that they consider this a false positive [1].

The software distributor states that MacKeeper secures, cleans, protects and optimizes a system. There are many positive reviews of the product and the software has been heavy promoted though advertising and an affiliate commission scheme. A large number of customers were offered refunds as a settlement resulting from a class-action lawsuit alleging that it didn't perform any credible diagnostic testing. MacKeeper is flagged as a potentially unwanted program by MalwareBytes though the developer states that this is a false positive and the software is definitely not a virus 119.224.17.35 (talk) 12:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Given MalwareBytes is actually a competing software package, consideration of them as a reliable source of criticism of MacKeeper is highly questionable; in the very least it's not neutral and should not be included within the lead. There was a class-action lawsuit settled for 2M USD without admission of guilt nor validation of the class-holders arguments. The above would lead readers to believe the lawsuit was validated which is very much untrue. If you would rather state "it was alleged in a class-action lawsuit that MacKeeper deceived users into paying for unneeded fixes and was settled for 2M USD without any admission of guilt" I would be supportive but Malwarebytes is 100% out.--Labattblueboy (talk) 18:11, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

From what I can see Malwarebytes has a good reputation in the market and to suggest that they are not neutral on the basis that they are a competitor to MacKeeper means that it would be difficult for any anti-malware software to be flagged as a potentially unwanted program because of an implicit bias by a competitor. If you can find other examples of Malwarebytes attacking competitors in this manner then I will definitely discount them a non-neutral source but as far as I can tell they are a reputable, well respected company. We are not here to make a judgement on the matter, just to summarize what can be verifiably referenced. As previously stated and the accusation from Malwarebytes is to be balanced against MacKeeper's denial that their product is a virus and that they consider this a false positive.

Your point about the class action is a valid one, the new quote sounds much more balanced to me and improves the article in that previously it wasn't clear that the suit was settled, ie it was alleged in a class-action lawsuit that MacKeeper deceived users into paying for unneeded fixes and was settled for 2M USD without any admission of guilt. 119.224.17.35 (talk) 19:59, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

The Malwarebytes source has a number of problems: Firstly there does exist an implicit bias and conflict of interest with one firm commenting on the functionality of its competitor's product, in short the source is not an independent. Secondly, after a second examination, I would question whether the source constitutes being a reliable source. It's blog entry on the firm's website (WP:RSOPINION) and this does not fit within the exceptions generally provided under WP:USERGENERATED as their is no editorial board. On closer examination I see the writer is Thomas Reed; he runs/ran a website called thesafemac which has been harping against MacKeeper for some time so that doesn't exactly speak to neutral high quality sourcing; It was previously determined Reed's website was not reliable (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_161#thesafemac.com). If you want to push the subject you can certainly seek guidance from the reliable sources noticeboard (WP:RSN) however my read of the situation is this Malwarebytes is not a reliable source and I don't see my views changing on this subject.

If we ditch the Malwarebytes reference in the lead and go with something like the following I'm in full agreement with the edit to the lead: Although there are many positive reviews of the product, MacKeeper has been referred to as a potentially unwanted program and accused of not performing as advertised.--Labattblueboy (talk) 23:33, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

So the sticking point we have is that you propose that we include a bold statement Although there are many positive reviews of the product, MacKeeper has been referred to as a potentially unwanted program and accused of not performing as advertised in the lead without any reference. I think this is unacceptable as this is a controversial subject and Wikipedia guidelines state that in a lead, "Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations".

To those ends, I am trying to justify the Malwarebytes reference as a reliable source. Thanks for the background on Thomas Reed, I had not heard of him before I read his piece in the last few days but I've now read the link from 2013 where "TheSafeMac" was judged to be a self published source and I can see that this assessment would have been a reasonable conclusion to make in 2013 when the review was done. However, in the 4 years since then TheSafeMac has been sold to MalwareBytes and it's AdwareMedic product has been rebranded and further developed as Malwarebytes for Mac. Thomas Reed is now "Director of Mac & Mobile" at Malwarebytes who has written extensively on the subject of Mac malware. As for the Malwarebytes blog entry being a reliable source, may I quote from Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Are_weblogs_reliable_sources.3F "Weblog material written by well-known professional researchers writing within their field, or well-known professional journalists, may be acceptable, especially if hosted by a university, newspaper or employer". Although I propose that we reference a "blog", it's written by an employee working as a director and published by a reputable company so I think the notability criteria is met here. I rest my case on this point, I don't seek to change your opinion just to state the facts as I see them.

After some research I've found other references from anti-virus vendor Sophos and in a recent technical paper states "of all PUAs we intercepted, MacKeeper was most prolific". I would appreciate it if you could review these two alternative sources and let me know what you think. I understand that this is yet another anti-virus vendor and therefor a competitor to MacKeeper but I don't think it's fair or reasonable to label something as a "potentially unwanted program" without referencing an anti-malware vendor.

As previously stated, I also think it's only fair to balance this statement by including the response from MacKeeper stating that this is a false positive https://mackeeper.com/false-positive-report Thanks for your perseverance with this, it's important that we get it right. 119.224.17.35 (talk) 09:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

The intention of the lead is to summarize the information already presented in the article not to introduce information not already present. This is starting to become an exercise in shopping for sources to present a desired position in the lead rather than summarizing data already presented. The Sophos piece isn't a secondary source (it's primary) and it's inclusion would likely constitute original research; secondary sources are the name of the game not the synthesis of primary sources. Having a look at the sources present I don't believe the potentially unwanted program argument can be made in the lead and by consequence should read: MacKeeper has been accused of not performing as advertised. As I mentioned you are free to engage the reliable source noticeboard if you believe others would come to different conclusions.--Labattblueboy (talk) 13:26, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I've amended the lead to reflect at least those areas where I believe we are in agreement. If I've misread the situation you may certainly undo.--Labattblueboy (talk) 14:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

You say "The intention of the lead is to summarize the information already presented in the article not to introduce information not already present". The fact is that the body of the article already stated that "MacKeeper has been referred to as a potentially unwanted program by Malwarebytes" and I was simply trying to add this to the lead in order to properly summarize the content, not to introduce anything new. I see you have now removed the reference to Malwarebytes and I am going to restore this because I think it's important to reference such a bold claim. As for your claim that Sophos is a primary source, I can't understand how two different sources can state the same thing and both be primary. 119.224.17.35 (talk) 19:34, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I have now edited the article body to restore the original statement you "MacKeeper has been referred to as a potentially unwanted program by Malwarebytes" which you removed in your most recent edits and added a reference from Sophos ranking MacKeeper as the number 1 PUP of 2017. For balance I have added a link to the statement from Kromtech to state that the vendor calls this a false positive. The full edit is as follows:

MacKeeper has been criticized for being very difficult to uninstall and referred to as a potentially unwanted program by Malwarebytes while Sophos reports it as the number 1 potentially unwanted program detected during 2017. Kromtech have stated that anti-virus scanners are known to report MacKeeper and that this is a false positive. A July 2017 AV-TEST assessment found MacKeeper only detected 85.9 percent of the tested malware.

119.224.17.35 (talk) 19:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

And I have removed the Malwarebytes statement because it's not a reliable source, same goes for Sophos. Secondary sources are necessary!! If you would like to contest whether Malwarebytes / Sophos are reliable sources please address the issue to WP:RSN.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:04, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

In response to your arguments:

1. You state "Given MalwareBytes is actually a competing software package, consideration of them as a reliable source of criticism of MacKeeper is highly questionable; in the very least it's not neutral". I can't find anything to suggest that MalwareBytes engages in questionable or anti-competitive practices, feel free to site your sources for this. As for the neutrality of the source, WP:NEUTRALSOURCE states that while an article must have an overall NPOV, Reliable sources may be non-neutral.

2. You state "These references are disallowed because they are primary sources", may I quote WP:PRIMARYCARE which states that primary sources are permitted "to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person—with access to the source but without specialist knowledge—will be able to verify are directly supported by the source". I believe that this applies in this case.

3. You state that Sophos is not a reliable source. They are are 32 year old company with revenues of over $400 million in 2016 and are listed on the FTSE250 share index in London. I think this bestows a certain amount of credibility on them but feel free to cite your references for them being unreliable. Once again I've quoted a straightforward, descriptive statement from the source. 119.224.17.35 ::(talk) 06:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

We aren't going to come to an agreement here. There is not a single neutral secondary source referring to MacKeeper as potentially unwanted program and the contemporary body of work as a whole certainty doesn't reflect that view, at least at this time. Either way, the potentially unwanted program mention isn't appropriate for the lead. The Sophos piece is primary source material (it's not covered nor cited by an other sources) from a competitor. There are cases where primary sources work, but this is not one of them. MalwareBytes is a blog posting on a competitors website from a writer who hasn't exactly been objective on this topic and is not a leading expert in field, so yah MalwareBytes is not reliable. Do feel free to take this matter to WP:RSN, I'll support any clear determination that comes from that forum--Labattblueboy (talk) 08:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

With hindsight it started as a straight forward edit which I made after being surprised to find that anti-virus vendors were apparently incorrectly identify MacKeeper as a virus. Having done a fair amount of research this appears to be a much more complex and controversial subject than I ever imagined. I agree that we appear to be deadlocked and thank you for your ongoing courtesy in this discussion. Please allow me a little time to summarize what has been discussed here and I will take it to WP:RSN in due course. 119.224.17.35 (talk) 19:16, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I've seen some of the comments at WP:COMPSEC. I pulled the formal forecast report published Sophos and I've cited that, along with the relevant page number. The Sophos annual forecast report appears to gets a decent level of media coverage. In fact iTWire[2] published (re-published) the PuP comments regarding MacKeeper. I've included that mention in the Version 3 reviews; seems like the best place.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:03, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for identifying the secondary source to back up my primary source from Sophos identifying MacKeeper as a Potentially Unwanted Program. I appreciate your help with this, I will do some further research because I think there is definitely room for improvement in this article. 119.224.17.35 (talk) 08:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I deleted the inadequate lead tag; inserting that was not exactly the most cooperative effort as it appear the only real basis for doing so was you continue to disagree regarding the lack of PuP statements in the lead. I have re-included the statement about being difficult to uninstall; it was previously present and must have been accidentally removed.--Labattblueboy (talk) 15:14, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

This article's lead section may not adequately summarize its contents.

Since we now have reliable sources stating that Mackeeper is a prolific potentially unwanted program on the Mac properly balanced against a denial from Kromtech, I think the previous discussion can be closed.

I am starting a new section to move this discussion forward to deal with the inadequate lead. The Inadequate lead tag was revered by Labattblueboy, perhaps I was too bold in adding it and I apologize if I've casused offense, I'm not a very experienced editor so thank you for bearing with me if I do things which are outside of the generally accepted way of doing things.

The rationale for stating that the lead is inadequate references MOS:LEAD which states that "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents". There is a strong case to be made that the lead doesn't cover the current state of the product as described in reliably sourced and referenced statements from section MacKeeper#Version_3. In particular, the lead doesn't cover the statements that MacKeeper is a Potentially Unwanted Program, performs poorly and is difficult to remove.

Any suggestions on how we can further improve the lead of this article are welcome. 119.224.17.35 (talk) 22:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

See the feedback you've received in response to the solicitation here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Computer_Security#MacKeeper_Content.2Freferences_dispute_-_can_anyone_give_me_a_second_opinion_on_this. In summary:

• The citation from Sophos isn't suitable for the lead but is within a sub-section.
• "You can't use the company itself as a source here"

The lead covers the overall picture of the software. Instead of focusing on the lead, work the sections. If the wide body of sources (not just one source) reflect the position of Mackeeper being a Potentially Unwanted Program then the lead can be amended to reflect the same view. A present my source search hasn't shown that but maybe you'll find a body of reliable source I've missed.--Labattblueboy (talk) 23:21, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

In the discussion above, you suggested an addition to the lead of "Although there are many positive reviews of the product, MacKeeper has been referred to as a potentially unwanted program and accused of not performing as advertised." I'm happy to go with that in the lead, what do you think? 119.224.17.35 (talk) 11:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

On what basis would the potentially unwanted program statement be included given the feedback to date? Forbes is quoting from Thomas Reed at Malwarebytes (identified as questionably reliable) and iTWire is quoting Sophos. Nothing has changed in terms of having a wider body of work; Malwarebytes & Sophos each have major drawback as base sources and have each been identified as inappropriate to support a lead statement.--Labattblueboy (talk) 12:46, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

We have two reliable secondary sources quoting two reliable primary sources (Sophos and MalwareBytes) saying that state that MacKeeper is a Potentially Unwanted Program.

1. Sophos is one of the primary sources. My case is that Sophos is a company which has been in the business for 32 years, has revenues of over $400 million in 2016 and is listed on the FTSE250 in London. They were cited in a secondary source in a well-established news outlet ITWire.

2. The primary reference from MalwareBytes is cited as a secondary reference by Forbes in which is also a well established news outlet. The question of the Malwarebytes reference being written by Thomas Reed needs to be further clarified. Back in 2014, Reed's blog www.thesafemac.com was judged to be unreliable because it was self published and I think this was probably a fair assessment to make at the time. Thomas Reed now works for MalwareBytes since 2015, so we need to reconsider him as a reliable source. Representing MalwareBytes as an authority on Mac malware Reed has been cited as a Mac security expert by Arstechnica, Forbes, PCMag, ITWire, PCMag, SCMagazine, TomsGuide, CNN, Wired, ComputerWorld, CNET, Sophos and TheRegister in recent years. That's a pretty extensive list of publications and I think this confirms MalwareBytes and Thomas Reed as a reliable source.

3. Note that in the context of points 1 and 2, I am only considering the reliability of the source not the neutrality. When considering the neutrality of the sources we must take into account WP:BIASED, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. There are definitely strong points of view in this article but I stress that they are presented by reliable sources and are therefore valid to include.

4. I am endeavoring to balance the points of view to keep the article neutral, in particular by trying to find a way to find secondary sources for the primary sourced statement from Kromtech denying that MacKeeper is a virus, malware or potentially unwanted program[3]. Perhaps we can use this reference from MacWorld [4]? Given the number of affiliate sites posting reviews of MacKeeper it is proving a bit difficult to find reliable secondary sources for this so your help would be appreciated. 119.224.17.35 (talk) 00:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

5. Finally, I think it is quite unusual indeed for reputable anti-malware vendors to accuse a competitor of being potentially unwanted software and to be so outspoken against it. This is highly significant and this needs to be summarized in the lead otherwise it doesn't adequately sum up the article. 119.224.17.35 (talk) 00:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

1. You would be quite mistaken to believe that simply because ITWire of Forbes re-posted content from Sopphos and Malwarebytes that the source viability issues are addressed. The statement of "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own" i the Forbes source certainly gives one reason to pause. I'll be quite blunt on this matter, short of a wider body of sources I won't change my position regarding the lead statement for potentially unwanted program. The statement is already quite precarious however I'm happy, and support, leaving it within the review section until such time a wider body of work comments on the matter.
2. The MacWorld source is fully via viable to support a statement along the lines of: "MacWorld argues various reports have erroneously suggested MacKeeper is a scam or at worst malware." I'll drop this statement into the review section.--Labattblueboy (talk) 09:20, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

There used to be many other reliable sources in this article, e.g., Business Insider's critical review (stating outright that MacKeeper is malware), but they have all been silently deleted. As has the discussion on the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.110.12.204 (talk) 06:45, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• The article only contains reliable sources. I don't remember a Business Insider review referring to MacKeeper as malware, if you have the link it would be helpful if you provided it. To date no reliable sources refer to MacKeeper as malware, and certainly not a spectrum of them.--Labattblueboy (talk) 07:39, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Did you delete the references to the reliable (not neutral) sources that criticise MacKeeper? Then I think we've found the problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.110.12.204 (talk) 17:15, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

There is no wide (or even small) body of reliable source which refer to MacKeeper as malware. Like stated before, if you have the link it would be helpful if you provided here.--Labattblueboy (talk) 00:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi 2.110.12.204, thanks for your input. There is no dispute that multiple reliable sources (Sophos, MalwareBytes) have identified MacKeeper as potentially unwanted software but as far as I am aware, there aren't any reliable sources which identify MacKeeper as malware. If you can find any reliable source then please present it here for consideration though I must warn you that there are people who watch this article who require a very high standard of reliability as the talk page and edit history will show. 119.224.17.35 (talk) 20:57, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on MacKeeper. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141028140409/http://mackeeper.com/media_room/newsletters/2014-10-21 to http://mackeeper.com/media_room/newsletters/2014-10-21
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130314030320/http://www.macworld.com/article/1151454/mackeeper.html to http://www.macworld.com/article/1151454/mackeeper.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:02, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

How to Uninstall

The article should reflect what prominent sources say about it. In this case, that's MacWorld [5]

In this case, the main point of MacWorld's article are that "some people regret installing MacKeeper, here is how to uninstall it." They additionally explain that the usual ways of quitting it don't work, and they go into a lot of detail about pop-up ads. Since they do, we should as well, regardless of whether or not a particular editor thinks it's worth doing.Adoring nanny (talk) 16:01, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but that "one editor" might be correct and the others wrong. WP:Not a democracy, nor a tyranny of the majority. I'm sure you would agree with that. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 23:57, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

The article already reflects the difficultly in uninstalling the program; both in the lead and in the version 3 section. The topic of pop-up adds is likewise reflected in the article as well. We can add this source to the number already supporting the statements but I don't see the benefit.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:42, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Two recent edits for review

This edit [6] containing a bold but well referenced statement from MacWorld revered without explanation by user:Labattblueboy.

MacKeeper is software distributed by Kromtech Alliance and marketed as a way to secure, clean, protect and optimize a computer operating system. MacWorld advises users to "vow to stay far, far away from MacKeeper" and has published a guide to uninstalling MacKeeper, which it says is a question it gets frequently.

This edit [7] reverted by User:BeenAroundAWhile saying "This is simply a blog owned by a direct competitor of MacKeeper."

Some MacKeeper advertisements pose as online malware scanners claiming to have found malware on a user's computer and prompting the user to download a removal tool, which is actually the MacKeeper setup wizard.

As described in Wikipedia:Blogs_as_sources "Blog" is just a technical description of a website's structure and layout so the fact that the statement was presented in a blog format is of no relevance. As for the reliability of the source, in this case it satisfies the requirement of being "Weblog material written by well-known professional researchers writing within their field, or well-known professional journalists, may be acceptable, especially if hosted by a university, newspaper or employer"

As for the statement itself, the vendor has freely accepted that it's affiliate scheme offering 50% commission has lead to unscrupulous affiliates causing problems, plenty of sources confirm that affiliates have wrapped MacKeeper ads into adware and has made it clear that it is working to stamp this practice out. It does happen, nonetheless. [8]

As for the source being a competitor to MacKeeper, bear in mind that MacKeeper is not an anti-virus product in and of itself, the MacKeeper anti-virus component is actually licensed from another vendor.

I would like to see these edits restored to the article. 119.224.17.35 (talk) 00:47, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

The source is not a news-gathering organization but is the official site for Malwarebytes, isn't it? That's my feeling. Thanks. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:32, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it does appear to be an offical site. Can you please help me understand how MalwareBytes being a direct competitor of MacKeeper or Malwarebytes not being a news orginisation precludes them from having their statements included here? 119.224.17.35 (talk) 12:17, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I certainly agree with the IP editor in regards to my MacWorld sourced edit. For a Mac-related article, MacWorld seems like a terrific source. I am additionally troubled by the reference to how MacKeeper is "marketed" in the lead. It would be much more appropriate to describe what it does -- pop-ups and so forth, as MacWorld says.Adoring nanny (talk) 21:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Can you have a read through the discussions on the talk page, there have been efforts to improve this article but there is some debate over the status of MacKeeper and the reliability of the sources. I proposed that the lede included a statement that MacKeeper was flagged as PUP by Sophos and MalwareBytes but the efforts ended in a deadlock. I think it's a very significant and highly unusual situation that we have a software developer's anti-virus offering detected by at least 2 respected anti-malware vendors and removed for being a "potentially unwanted program" and I would like to see this in the lede. Be aware that a very high standard for references and neutrality would be required in order to make such a serious statement. 119.224.17.35 (talk) 07:19, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

The source just isn't there. I'd suggest concentrating on what is sourced.Adoring nanny (talk) 11:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I've made a proposed amendment to the lede wherein the "marketed" statement is removed and the opening line is simply that it's a Mac OSX utility software. The following lines describe some of the issues addressed in neutral sources to date.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Ahh OK, can you have a look at these 3 sources referenced below and tell me what's wrong with them, I don't edit much so I'm still learning:

Referred to as a potentially unwanted program by Malwarebytes while Sophos reports it as the number 1 potentially unwanted program detected during 2017. Kromtech have stated that anti-virus scanners are known to report MacKeeper and that this is a false positive. 119.224.17.35 (talk) 12:10, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

This exact matter was previously addressed in the discussion above but I'll summarize. The Malwarebytes is not neutral (terrible tainted really), a conclusion supported by a third-party opinion here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Computer_Security/Archive_4#MacKeeper_Content/references_dispute_-_can_anyone_give_me_a_second_opinion_on_this the same third-party view provided guidance on including the Sophos review which you will find in the Reception / Version 3 section. The third-party opinion also validated the conclusion that inclusion of a "potentially unwanted program" statement in the lede wasn't appropriate as the statements originate from competitors. With this in mind, I remain very much against a PuP statement in the lede, at least until neutral sources actually begin referring to it as such.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Malwarebytes may be tainted, but MacWorld isn't.[9] It says: try Malwarebytes Anti-Malware for Mac, which is AdwareMedic utility that scans your Mac for known adware. Run a scan and check the boxes by anything you want to delete. It’ll find the MacKeeper app and all its various parts wherever they are on your system. Also worth noting that the lead is supposed to summarize the "most important information" in the article. For a typical computer user, the fact that a program slows down your mac, causes pop-up ads, can't be quit like most programs, and needs an article to explain how to uninstall it is obviously critically important information about the program. It's all quite well documented in the MacWorld article, so ours should do the same.Adoring nanny (talk) 22:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a manual (see WP:NOTHOWTO) and isn't to be written as an instruction manual. Consequently, an instructional section on how to install the program isn't appropriate and won't be included. With this context in mind, what more could the article state given it already makes mention of the uninstall difficulties and the pop-up ads?--Labattblueboy (talk) 03:14, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

No one is suggesting that we put instructions for removing MacKeeper in here, just a statement that people have found it very difficult to remove. You ask "what more could the article state given it already makes mention of the uninstall difficulties and the pop-up ads", well it could state in the lede that it's flagged by Sophos and MalwareBytes as a "Potentially Unwanted Program".

As for the introduction statement about what MacKeeper is, I agree with Labattblueboy that the original statement that "MacKeeper is marketed as a way to secure, clean, protect and optimize a computer operating system" is a good summary of the product and it should be restored to the lede otherwise it's not clear what utility MacKeeper offers. 119.224.17.35 (talk) 11:31, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

A PuP statement in the lede isn't warranted at the present and a third party review came to the same conclusion. Until the literature changes and fully neutral sources declare it a PuP I wouldn't support a PuP statement in the lede. For the lede, I am happy with the present first sentence or the previous one. I'll revert to the previous first sentence tomorrow unless someone wants to jump in and voice a particular preference for the present statement.--Labattblueboy (talk) 02:26, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Labattblueboy, I've answered that quite clearly in my post of May 22, 22:39 Adoring nanny (talk) 00:30, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

No, it's not clear. Maybe a more constructive route forward is for you to provide how you believe the text should be amended. At present I would argue the lede does summarize the most important information however there is always room for improvement and if you have a constructive idea I would certainly like to hear it.--Labattblueboy (talk) 02:26, 24 May 2018 (UTC)