Talk:Ghostery
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
This article was nominated for deletion on 10 June 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
Archives (Index) |
This page is archived by ClueBot III.
|
A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:50, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Ghostery Lite
For the current version of Safari, they make available only Ghostery Lite. We should have an entry on this. On what is missing. It still claims to offer "comprehensive privacy protection". -IP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:8381:99C0:8071:38EE:1DF5:DAFA (talk) 18:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Unsubstantiated severe claim in criticism section since at least 2015
- Bias/prejudice editors on Wiki overseeing Ghostery section = Simple updates such as current extension information are reversed by "others" to shape a negative opinion about this extension - Denial of Edward Snowden's shout out to this extension - Entire criticism section needs to be deleted as it no longer has any valid references but bias senior editors allowed it to remain. - Misleading and erronoeous opinons are contained in the criticism section - False accusations never proven remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newb787 (talk • contribs) 06:56, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
This was brought up already in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ghostery/Archives/2015#Criticism_Section and still applies.
In the Criticism section, one sentence reads: "GhostRank [...] sent that information back to advertisers so they could better formulate their ads to avoid being blocked.[20]" (Emphasis mine.)
The first part is as far as I know uncontested, the second has been contradicted by the makers many, many times, is not further qualified, explained or supported in any way in the referenced article and is basically unsubstantiated conjecture.
(I am not affiliated with the company or the extension and haven't used it in years because I don't need it and am uncomfortable with their affiliations, even if I personally don't think they're immoral.)
--2003:C9:4711:4B00:A0D9:D261:9830:FF1B (talk) 12:19, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- See WP:FALSEBALANCE. We don't delete unfavorable information just because the article subject doesn't like it. MrOllie (talk) 13:20, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
- All unassessed articles
- Start-Class Marketing & Advertising articles
- Low-importance Marketing & Advertising articles
- WikiProject Marketing & Advertising articles
- Start-Class Computing articles
- Low-importance Computing articles
- Start-Class software articles
- Mid-importance software articles
- Start-Class software articles of Mid-importance
- All Software articles
- Start-Class Free and open-source software articles
- Mid-importance Free and open-source software articles
- Start-Class Free and open-source software articles of Mid-importance
- All Free and open-source software articles
- All Computing articles