Talk:MacKeeper

Unclear and dubious

How can "3.x" be the "latest version"? What's with "x"? The entire article looks like it's been edited as an advertisement. The same user "Labattblueboy" keeps reverting and editing back to a version that doesn't reflect what is at least mentioned on this talk page. For that reason alone, the page should be locked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.110.12.204 (talk) 18:34, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Hi Labattblueboy - if you provide the requirements YOU have to a clear and unambiguous source, I will provide the data and copy. Then we can all hope you won't housekeep the article. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.110.12.204 (talk) 18:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I have absolutely on idea what you are trying to say.--Labattblueboy (talk) 22:25, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Spyware/malware, certainly unethical features

I've been tricked into installing Mackeeper multiple times and every time it changes my default search engine and homepage in Google Chrome to Yahoo (On Mac OS X) without my knowledge, approval, or consent. That's unethical and possibly illegal. This article is far too soft of a tone, likely because it is closely monitored by MacKeeper Staff. The argument that in order for the article to be balanced it must take a neutral tone is to commit the logical fallacy of equivocating the two sides of a controversy that is clearly one-sided (e.g. global warming). Not warning users about the malware-tactics and features of a piece of software like this is a disservice to the community who rely on sites like Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spaycemunkie (talk • contribs) 22:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

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

The result of the move request was: uncontested move. DrKiernan (talk) 09:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

---

Mackeeper → MacKeeper – The product's name is in CamelCase, so the K in the middle needs to be capitalized. After you've moved it, please replace this article with a redirect. 82.32.198.178 (talk) 09:15, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Untitled

Is MacKeeper free? There's no mention of cost in the article Ern Malleyscrub (talk) 09:23, 28 September 2012 (UTC) MacKeeper is not free. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.121.74.40 (talk) 17:22, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

See the thread immediately above this. MacKeeper has a very bad reputation among users, including unauthorised charges against credit cards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.23.133.132 (talk) 04:57, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Honesty of MacKeeper

I always thought that MacKeeper was some kind of malware given the aggressive marketing and that I managed to download it without my consent several times (I never installed it, but while looking for other files it was downloaded automatically). I would include more content/warnings from blogs like this one: http://www.reedcorner.net/beware-mackeeper/ into the article. (It is not unlikely that MacKeeper folks will delete my comment though.) And then I noticed the following editing which made it clear that the company is watching over this website: [1] --188.230.211.225 (talk) 07:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Request Deletion

MacKeeper is malware, and this page should be rewritten and locked. Seriously, you guys need quality control. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.226.58.81 (talk) 21:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not technically malware, but certainly many expressions of unease are out there. Consider this:

"One of the features of MacKeeper is anti-virus protection. There is a free, and quite excellent, anti-virus program for the Mac called ClamXav. The ClamXav web site is clamxav.com. ZeoBIT has purchased a very similar domain – clamxav.org – and has posted a “review” of ClamXav there."

(Source is [http://www.reedcorner.net/beware-mackeeper/ reedconer.net) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.23.133.132 (talk) 05:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

WikiProblem - MacKeeper

Oh boy - this really outlines a problem for Wikipedia. How does a volunteer organization keep information clean in the face of deep-pocketed corporations?

This article so obviously reads like company advertising - dominated by "features", with absolutely no discussion by neutral parties. Come, on, my own mother has more faults than none, are you telling me MacKeeper is perfect?

This article needs supervision by Wikipedia staff, and it points up a serious problem, how to finance the supervision of countless articles which just become free advertising.

Wikipedia needs to protect its integrity. Billyshiverstick (talk) 23:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree, this is the crux of Wikipedia, its strength and its weakness. But we can all agree that MacKeeper is most definitely malware.(109.104.29.199 (talk) 11:51, 9 February 2014 (UTC)).

You have to show a position with reliable sources. No wide body is yet calling it malware, although there is certainly sources that have questioned the marketing techniques--Labattblueboy (talk) 07:27, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Corporate Editing

Any addition of information that questions in any way the legitimacy of MacKeeper, which is the top question among the Mac community, is deleted immediately. No sources are given for the majority of information ZeoBits has added and what little is present is incorrect. These actions alone go to show the illegitimacy of MacKeeper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipeian103 (talk • contribs) 04:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

To answer GeorgeLouis's question, QuentinAdam and possibly Jeremiah2012. Both of them have also changed their talk pages to make their connection to the product more ambiguous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiachra10003 (talk • Fiachra10003 (talk) 12:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Ad?

I have noticed that this article is written very much like an advertisement. The article skims all the features to advertise them, and has an awards section. MacKeeper is praised WAY too much in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.234.75.253 (talk) 19:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

...this is perhaps one of the problems with wikipedia... just like how smoking isn't _proved_ to cause cancer, or how darwin is just a theory... mackeeper is the same- we all know it's garbageware, but _proving_ that is so hard

Partnerships

I deleted the partnership content as it was not clear how that related to changes inplemented in the software. Partership content likely fits on company article but not here.--Labattblueboy (talk) 19:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Advert tag

What widely reported issues are you referring to. The most common stated problem is the programs association with MacDefencer. I went looking for an article on its advertising practices and although there are forum posts I haven't found anything that could be classified as a reliable source.--Labattblueboy (talk) 04:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

The Partnership section is irrelevant the Problems section is promotional, the Features section is kind of POV. FrankDev (talk) 04:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed on partnerships but disagree on features. Its not at all uncommon to find description of the software features in an article. Weasle words have been largely dealt with. I am open to suggestions on pairing it down if that's the concern.--Labattblueboy (talk) 04:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Lies-by omission

This article is a simple ad following the pattern of the highly suspicious and widely detested mackeeper ads.. i.e. make claims and remove all criticisms (which are serious and many). Another feature of their promotion is people who are obviously employees post fake reviews and promotional articles. It is deceitful and shaming to Wikipedia and should be revised and locked with references to the many - just try Apple Support Communities for instance- very serious problems encountered on foot of this . . . and the company unethically promoting it.176.61.48.243 (talk) 21:09, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The issues seem to largely relate to marketing technique and software that employs similar names. However the citations (all independent) clearly indiate that this is not malware. Forum posts are not reliable sources, if however you have articles that state otherwise that would work.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:32, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Neutral sources

I removed mention of a brothersoft review only because I have some concerns about it's validity as a source. Any thoughts? Does anyone one have any concerns regarding the neutrality of macfeed as a source.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:01, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

COI tag

Copy editing on the article was completed after the article was identified as a having potential advert. issues sometime in Jan/Feb 2013. Copy editing and souring was completed and consensus at the time was that there was no longer an NPOV issue. Whether or not past contributors had any connection to the developer is irrelevant so long as the article is NPOV and fair. “Significant or substantial problems with the article's neutrality” have not been identified so I removed the COI tag. If there are substantial issues please identify them.--Labattblueboy (talk) 16:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe that "copy editing" is sufficient to remove the fundamental conflict of interest. One of the authors who made substantial contributions to the text of the article admitted to a connection to the company marketing the product. Another has a "disclaimer" - he "... in the past worked as a consultant for IT and Security Companies and may edit those pages from time to time" - when he has only ever edited one page not related to Zeobit, Kromtech, PCKeeper or MacKeeper.

The only way to remove the conflict of interest is to start again or to get people to openly declare their connections and revert the edits of those with COIs. Otherwise, I believe we need to keep the WP:COI tag in place. Let's open a discussion and find a real consensus. Fiachra10003 (talk) 00:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Starting from scratch is neither reasonable, called for in Wikipedia policy or required; It may be if there was an apparent NPOV issue but I think it's been sufficiently managed at this point that the content in NPOV. The COI tag has very specific parameters ("an article is biased or has other serious problems as a direct result of the editing done by the subject of the article or a person with a close connection"). If the article is no longer biased that the tags not required. Now that being said, if you want to approach the COI noticeboard and get a second opinion I'm certainly not opposed, I just don't see where any potential biased remains in the article. --Labattblueboy (talk) 02:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The Conflict of interest/Noticeboard page is for determining "whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest ... for a specific article" and "whether an edit by a COIN declared COI editor does not meet a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline". It's not for determining whether bias remains as a result of undeclared or informally declared COI editors editing the article. Despite your Stakhanovite labors, I'm not convinced that the article is truly NPOV, not least because there's a significant school of thought that MacKeeper is simply malware and this point keeps getting purged from the article. Comments? Fiachra10003 (talk) 17:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Do update me on the result of the debate and whether the folks frequenting the noticeboard have any advice for this case in particular. There is no indication from reliable sources that mackeeper is malware. I am happy to include reliable sources that state that but at this point I haven't seen any that do. It's similarity in name Ia topic covered on the page is the apparent source of that mistaken belief.--Labattblueboy (talk) 02:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Kromtech Alliance

This entity seems to have no other products but those formerly sold by Zeobit. It would be interested to know why a company was formed to buy these controversial products, and whether there is any cross-ownership of Zeobit and Kromtech Alliance. Nicmart (talk) 00:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Major edits

The majority of sources do not call this software malware so I have removed that from the lead. The main body of the article describing the software features could likely use a copy edit but I don't agree with its full deletion. The Safe Mac is not the most notable of source, nothing in the fakes virus infection post gazette article states that the program "fakes viruses" or "scare users".--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

The software features section has been flagged as advert language for a long time. The malware claim is sourced sufficiently. And the article does say MacKeeper "identifies problems that don't exist", in the context of security. Nevertheless, I've changed the wording and added another source. --OKNoah (talk) 00:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Which sources site it as malware? The only source that does so is the Techbytes citation which is just a blog which is a bit questionable as a source (per WP:USERGENERATED and nowhere in the applehelpwriter.com article does it call it this software package malware. In short, there are no reliable source that I've seen call it such. There is at least one citation in the features section, I'll see if I do to increase that tonight. With that in mind, please see WP:VANDTYPES and immediate cease from blanking the section. Both I and Staglit have warned you to stop doing so. Lets work together to clean the section up. For the review section Safe Mac is not the most prominent source, I'd be happy to lead the section by saying reviews are mixed but thesafemac is not the most notable and of questionable reliability but see its value to help show there is a mixed view of this software package.--Labattblueboy (talk) 05:23, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Check the retrieval date of the applehelpwriter.com article (and URL). Checking the sources again, they all say malware. --OKNoah (talk) 17:42, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I've added a couple additional sources to the features section and given it a light copy-edit. I also added reviews from AV-Comparatives and Softonic.com although the Softonic review could still use a one line summary of the pros and cons of the software. I returned the WOT reference to the Reviews section and placed it where the appstorm review was previously.--Labattblueboy (talk) 06:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit. I'll leave it there for now and review it later. Initial impression is it's too reliant on a single source that isn't a journalistic one. --OKNoah (talk) 17:42, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

OKNoah making significant changes to the article without discussion or consensus needs to cease. I would like to improve this article but that won't be possible if you are not willing to arrive at a baseline through consensus. If you'd like to bring in Mediation I'd be happy to do that, but you can't keep making major changes to the article without discussion.--Labattblueboy (talk) 22:53, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

We're discussing it right now. --OKNoah (talk) 02:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I've gone ahead a requested a WP:THIRDOPINION.--Labattblueboy (talk) 23:04, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Principle concerns for myself are:

1. There isn't what I would describe as a body of reliable source material to make a claim that this is malware. None of the reliable sources in the reviews section accuse it of being malware so I don't see it as appropriate to call it as such in the lead. There are opinion pieces and forums that have accused it of being malware but no truly reliable source (Not a single magazine, or newspaper, or industry leading blog / review site) has done so.
2. The Reception section should be neutral and provide a summary as exists in reliable sources. It should not be title "criticisms", as that's not a neutral point of view and rather ambiguous.
3. Giving priority to reviews that are not the majority opinion and of questionably reliability. I have concerns with The Safe Mac as a source in general but moreso if it's given the priority of the reviews section. I am happy to see it and Web of Trust stay because I think they provide about as reliable a source as possible as to concerns with the software. That being said, actual publications and more reliable sources and , as is the case in most articles, should be given priority.
4. The reference to the confusion between Mac Defender and MacKeeper has been present since 2012 so I'm not sure why it is being removed. It's cited and believe is a notable an common issues.--Labattblueboy (talk) 01:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

1. It's sometimes called malware. The article is impartial about whether it is or not.
2. This is a pretty standard section.
3. I don't think the positive reviews represent the consensus.
4. I may have removed it by mistake or as redundant. I remember editing something about that and finding it interesting. My bad, I guess. (EDIT: If you mean the Hamburger article, it doesn't mention MacKeeper. It's not needed in this article, in my opinion. The 3rd opinion can decide.) --OKNoah (talk) 02:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I've undone your edit. You removed a great deal of cited content. If you want to place a note in the lead that it's sometimes called malware I can live with that (but would still disagree) until we get some mediation. I will however oppose edits to the reception section where you delete cited content, place the safe mac as the lead reference or change the title of the section to criticism.--Labattblueboy (talk) 06:06, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I've referred a couple references to the reliable source noticeboard for comment. Notably WOT, The Safe Mac and the UMass blog.--Labattblueboy (talk) 07:06, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Can you please link to that notice board here? Thanks. Please see Wikipedia:Criticism Sections. We can either separate Criticism and reviews, or create a Controversy section. Let's talk about it before reverting again. --OKNoah (talk) 08:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Although WP:CRIT is not a policy I do note the following which applies directly to this case:""Reception" section. With this approach, the article contains a section dedicated to positive and negative assessments of the topic. The section should not use a negative title like "Criticism" or "Controversies" but instead should use a more neutral term such as "Reception", "Assessment", "Reviews", "Influence", or "Response". This approach is often found in articles. I'm not going to undo the edit but I am going to remove the sources marked as not reliable and return the cited content that was in the review section that you've deleted. I am also flagging the criticism section as potential POV, per the criticism section template and leave my edits to that. I've provided a full explanation of each individually.

• WOT is not reliable per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Web_of_Trust
• The Safe Mac is not reliable Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#The_Safe_Mac
• Blogs.umass.edu split at the moment Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#blogs.umass.edu--Labattblueboy (talk) 01:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

A balanced article has no need for a "criticism" section, but this contentious article does because it's unbalanced. Web of Trust is fine in this context, as your link states. --OKNoah (talk) 07:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd be happy if we just merged all the subcategories into one category called "Reception" and then you have both the review and some demonstrated concerns together. The source(s) have to pass the reliability test and as noted earlier a number of them have failed and thus been removed. For WOT to be acceptable you need a reliable source to cite it and there isn't one doing that. So, it was deleted as the conclusion of the discussion was that it was otherwise unreliable. Per the comments on the blogs.umass.edu discussion Cult of Mac is an suggested source and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_140#Cultofmac.com seem to considered acceptable: http://www.cultofmac.com/170522/is-mackeeper-really-a-scam/.--Labattblueboy (talk) 15:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the last edit, it's shaping up better. --OKNoah (talk) 23:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on MacKeeper and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

I'm not an expert on this subject and will not give an opinion on whether or not MacKeeper is malware. Blogs and crowd-sourced web sites can tell the truth, but they can also be misused. That's why we require reliable sources. You're doing the right thing by consulting WP:RSN. You're getting good comments from very experienced editors there, and I think your best course is to abide by them. @OKNoah: I share your rejection of the "stay-at-home-dad prejudice", but the main point there is that the blog is a self-published source, and we cannot safely rely on it by virtue of that. On the question of a Criticism section, it is much better to have a neutral section title like Reception, which can be used in a balanced way to give both sides, rather than a POV title like Criticism, which invites only one side. The argument "A balanced article has no need for a "criticism" section, but this contentious article does because it's unbalanced." spectacularly misses the point: on Wikipedia we're trying to make balanced articles, so please move it in that direction. Section titles like Criticism contribute to unbalancing things. Kind regards to both of you, Stfg (talk) 16:24, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The article says it's "sometimes called malware", not that it is malware. My comment re:Criticism is that there is disagreement throughout the article and it's hard to get criticism included. It's the lesser of two evils in Criticism section vs. no criticism at all. Thanks for you input. --OKNoah (talk) 22:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I think I can be plenty happy with how the lead looks now, with the "sometimes called malware" included when the statement about mixed reviews in also included. The topic of whether it is or is not malware does come up (the Cult of Mac review being a great example) so it seems appropriate to address that in the lead.--Labattblueboy (talk) 01:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

You can't use the phrase "sometimes called" unless you have a reliable source that uses that phrase - without reliable sourcing you have to avoid the adjective, which is subjective, and simply say either that it's malware, or that's called malware. Since "called malware" is a tautology I'd leave that out too and just say it's malware. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.23.132.217 (talk) 01:27, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Features section

This is a contentious part of the article and overdue for removal/edit. Some sources have been added but they're first-hand sources and from "Softonic". Softonic is a download site, do they write their own content or take it from first party? Aren't they a purely promotional (marketing) source? Please comment on how valid this source is. --OKNoah (talk) 03:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• A features section is standard for software articles but entirely agree that further copy-editing would improve the section. Deleting it would be considered blanking. Softonic has been accepted as a reliable source via the reliable source noticeboard [2] but that's not to say it's the best source. It's not perfect but better than nothing. --Labattblueboy (talk) 06:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

discussions.apple.com

I've sent the question as to whether discussions.apple.com opinion pieces would constitute a reliable source or not to the reliable source noticeboard. The subject is specifically, https://discussions.apple.com/docs/DOC-3036. The discussion is located at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#discussions.apple.com--Labattblueboy (talk) 04:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion confirmed that the source is not reliable.--Labattblueboy (talk) 23:17, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

There was no discussion, merely an opinion. The question remains open.

That is the location where such decisions are made. If you don't like it, make a case there. For the time being I see that topic as resolved.--Labattblueboy (talk) 05:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Fora such as the apple users one are acceptable if properly referenced as representing the views of the forum users - in other words, not authoritative, but self-referential. I'm surprised you don't know that - how long have you been editing Wikipedia? 103.23.133.132 (talk) 05:03, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

It could be reliable source if the user were a demonstrated expert from some company or authoritative source. that's not known, or shown, in this case. Consequently, it's consider user generated material and not reliable. If you have a reliable source that employs similar language I am by all means open to amendments but this source is not appropriate.--Labattblueboy (talk) 05:11, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

BTW, would you accept reedcorner.net as a reliable source? It says (quote): "There is a free, and quite excellent, anti-virus program for the Mac called ClamXav. The ClamXav web site is clamxav.com. ZeoBIT has purchased a very similar domain – clamxav.org – and has posted a “review” of ClamXav there. The page that ZeoBIT has posted on that site appears to be a ClamXav review. In the past, at the end of that review, there was a big green “Download” button that actually redirected the user to the MacKeeper web site. After a number of people (including me) criticized them for that in a public forum, they added an itty-bitty little link below the Download button that was nearly unreadable. That link read something like “Download ClamXav” and pointed to the real ClamXav site, but the Download button still redirected to the MacKeeper site.103.23.133.132 (talk) 05:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The Safe Mac was determined to not be a reliable source in a past discussion (see: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_174#The_Safe_Mac. I'll look to see if any of the source currently in use make a similar reference.--Labattblueboy (talk) 05:11, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Request for removal or warning

As IT in a school I constantly get computer not working (hard drives almost dead, internet blocked, computer very slow) and all caused by one software: MacKeeper. Please remove any advertisement for this software and PLEASE warn people to NOT install it. Even removing is complicated as it has spread in the OS (Libraries, System etc...). At the beginning everything looks nice and free but as soon as you refuse to pay for full version the software start to lock your computer.

Tested on a brand new MacOS just installed with nothing else than MacKeeper... It found more than 1000 errors on the computer (which were fake of course).

Many people don't even ask me about this software BECAUSE they see the page on wikipedia then they think it's a solution to every Mac problems which is wrong: it's the cause of most of them. I beg you please: put a warning on the page or remove it. If you don't believe me then: install it on a computer you don't need to work with, after a few weeks you'll see what I face EVERY DAY since now 3 years at work !

Thanks to act as soon as possible as it's a real problem for Mac users ! If you get paid to put this page and keep it then wikipedia doesn't bring only accurate informations.........

Thanks for your attention Reg Stéphane — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephanebosch79 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Go to Wikipedia:Deletion policy, although that page is pretty dense and hard to understand. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:28, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Imore.com Relaible source?

I undid an edit which included imore.com as a souce. It's a source that doesn't appear to fit within the context of reliable source. I also couldn't find another source which made statements of embeded pop-ups masking as OSX windows. Thoughts?--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I had a look at the source today, and the related statement attached. I think we can probably consider this website reliable, but the claim being made, and which I deleted, does not exist within the source. it does state that there's been issues with pop-up ads and generally questionable advertising techniques both of which are currently covered. there is however no claim within the source of embedded graphics. So, I'm good add this source so long as the embedded graphics mention is deleted.-Labattblueboy (talk) 16:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Here's a URL that points to Mackeeper's own domain that shows how their popups fake native windows in order to trick people. It doesn't get any more "reliable" than that. I am really pissed off this guy keeps policing this site - it's downright dishonest. By the way you can play with different values for "alert" to see how their site tries to fake native windows on different versions of OS X.

[[3]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.110.12.204 (talk) 08:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The editor just above actually placed this unsigned note at the top of the page; I have moved it here. As for the content of the note, I refer him or her to WP:Reliable sources. GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

MacKeeper is Rogue security software

The average computer user would assume MacKeeper is legit software, since it has this nice wikipedia page. In fact it is malware that scares users into buying the 'product'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skees (talk • contribs) 22:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• The average computer user needs to see full picture. I have deep concerns regarding the neutrality of sources that claim MacKeeper as a malware. I have installed MacKeeper and upon studying its latest version (3.4.1), there are no ways that the program itself can harm or de-stabilize your system as described by some sources. There are no confirmed claims of this software to perform functions with the intent to damage the machines. Negative reviews floating around the Internet use fuzzy references, like “My Mac running slow after I install MacKeeper”. Technically, MacKepeer is not malware. If you'd get annoyed by pop-ups that remind you about non-finished business with MacKeeper, it is not the reason to call it malware. Please consider reading this investigation before claiming it malware: http://www.mac-forums.com/blog/mac-forums-investigates-mackeeper/ Mayhem78 (talk) 11:23, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
• There is not a single realiable source, a comment noted numerous times here, that has referred to MacKeeper as malware. I've consequently removed the banner.--Labattblueboy (talk) 04:49, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
• Ok it is not exactly malware, but it has some characteristics that could be defined as unwanted and thus 'malware'. MacKeeper could be seen as Rogue security software. Removed the malware bit, but NPOV and Written like an Ad can still stay until someone adds a waring in the first paragraph, about the 'dangers' of installing MacKeeper. I suspect that Labattblueboy, given his amount of edits, is (at least in some way) involved with MacKeeper or Zerobit. He is claiming that every source against MacKeeper is 'unreliable' and only his one little source who claims it is not is a reliable source. I find hundreds of warnings by users tricked by the advertising strategy of MacKeeper more reliable than one or two of his sources. Skees (talk) 22:36, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @Skees: ha ha ha, connected to MacKeeper or Zerobit, that's hilarious. The reason why most sources have been considered unreliable in the past because they are WP:USERGENERATED. Take this to mean forums, personal website, etc. "Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable". I'd be more than happy to include. You need to justify your position that this software is Rogue security software with reliable sources. That is lacking in citation is the Features section, so I've moved the notice there. Otherwise there is no issue. So that we are clear I have no involement with MacKeeper or Zerobit but rather find this article interesting because what appears in reliable sources and what exists in user generated forums is vastly different.--Labattblueboy (talk) 04:00, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Lead

The class action lawsuits are remarkable for any software product, especially one so heavily promoted as MacKeeper. They deserve to be in the first sentence. MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 09:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

- No mentions that Kromtech is defendant of a lawsuit, as per PC World article. Mayhem78 (talk) 11:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Removed that part, thanks.MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 12:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• • I've reverted to the previous baseline. I entirely disagree that it should be the first sentence. See WP:BEGINNING, "first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what (or who) the subject is". In this case that it's a software suit with a specific function. Its aggressive advertising has been well documented but exaggerated security threats not so much, and a number of currently listed sources would actually directly contradict that. I note that nowhere in the article is exaggerated security threats is addressed let alone in a manner sufficiently prominent to justify inclusion in the lead. The lawsuits is something that may be warranted in the lead because we do have a section that covers but mention would probably be limited to being subject to lawsuits.--Labattblueboy (talk) 03:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Additional sources: [4], [5], [6][7]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk • contribs) 05:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, split into two sentences. WP:BEGINNING is clear that information should be in order of importance; this kind of trouble is obviously very important, so it's the immediate next thing.MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 05:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Additional sources refer to the one and only lawsuit. I really doubt it is 'troubled history of lawsuits', it is only one. Also, for neutrality of the article I would recommend looking at the profile of the plaintiff, which specializes in suing technology companies, claiming privacy violations: [[8]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayhem78 (talk • contribs) 10:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I find the current version[9] entirely agreeable. Topic of lawsuits is, as stated earlier certainly notable but they related to false advertising rather than exagerating security threats. I've returned the details as to what kind of utility software this is.--Labattblueboy (talk) 11:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

No, we can't say "optimize" because some sources say it slows your system down -- e.g. from David Payette, a tech expert and hence reliable: [10]. We can't say "clean", because of sources like Mac expert Peter Cohen saying this:

Literally every time I work in the computer store, we'll get a customer whose Mac is plagued with problems they don't understand: Their Mac is acting slow. It crashes. And more. And in more cases than not, we find that they've installed a program called MacKeeper. Removing MacKeeper fixes the problem. Read on for details[11]

and also because of the lawsuit: [12]

And we can't say "secure" because of the lawsuit, again: "it exaggerates security threats in order to convince customers to buy" [13]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk • contribs) 22:27, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

It does need to be explained as to what kind of utility software it is. A lawsuit concerning exagerated advertising does not preclude the fact that the software does have a certain function which should be detailed in a concise form. If you feel these are somehow weasle words I am certainly open to alternates. Is payetteforward.com a personal blog, if so it's questionable that it would be considered a relaible source unless of course its widely recognized leader in the field but I don't believe that to be true.--Labattblueboy (talk) 10:41, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:Lead is clear -- "According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources. " The most prominent source have to be PC World [14]. and Mac World[15]. PC World, in turn, gives the most weight to three issues: fake security problems, adware, and tools which duplicate functionality already available in OS X. Mac World, for its part, goes on at length about uninstalling MacKeeper. That's what the most prominent sources have to say, so that's what we need to cover.MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 15:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

What leads you to believe that in the review of the entire subject the PC World article is somehow the most relevant? It is recent but giving undue weight to one source is by no means appropriate and in this respect I cannot agree with you. Neither article you note advises users to delete the software and I note the Mac World article you quotes states "Some people have found MacKeeper useful, others not." Fully removing anti-virus software from a mac is a well-documented headache[16] but I would never then turn around and say that ClamXav is a foul creation on that basis. As noted already, reviews as to effectiveness of MacKeeper are clearly mixed. If we want to note in the review section that some existing reliable source reviews (I don't believe the PC World is alone here) have noted that some provided functions are already available in OSX I’m entirely OK with that. Beyond that, I fail to agree.--Labattblueboy (talk) 04:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm going by prominence. If there is another source as prominent as PC World, I would have no problem with that.MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 07:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to say but I don't believe PC World is somehow more prominent than the other reliable sources. You have no basis to discount the other sources.--Labattblueboy (talk) 08:41, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, what other source do you believe has a similar level of prominence?MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 11:35, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Given the absence of any academic works (WP:SCHOLARSHIP) on the subject, generally citations coming from "mainstream" publications. A fair number of those in the Reception section fit that description, so are of a similar status. You'd realistically have to compare editorial policies of the various publications if you really wanted to be exact.--Labattblueboy (talk) 12:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

What source, specifically, do you think is as prominent as PC World?MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 14:53, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Deletion by BeenAroundAWhile, August 2015

The user BeenAroundAWhile has reverted my changes and left a warning and false statements on my talk page and in their edit comments. The false part being that the sources were not only blogs and that not all sources had been discussed. This is the source: https://blog.malwarebytes.org/mac/2015/08/dyld_print_to_file-exploit-found-in-the-wild/ --OKNoah (talk) 00:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The revert was entirely appropriate. The text in the lead was arrived to by consensus (as noted in sections of this talk page) after much discussion. Some of the sources you have included as part of your lead edit have been found to be unreliable largely because they are personal productions. In the case of UMass.edu the post on the subject of MacKeeper has been removed. The Malwarebytes source is potentially appropriate for the reviews section but we best come to an agreement that it's reliable first.--Labattblueboy (talk) 02:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

You may recall you and I discussed the sources and had a third party look at them some time ago, and removed many of them. If there was further discussion, I missed it. The Malwarebytes article is not a review. --OKNoah (talk) 06:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Looks to me like the source is a profit-making enterprise called MalwareBytes, or maybe I am just confused by the cute commercial on this page: https://blog.malwarebytes.org/about/. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 02:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

From what I can see, Malwarebytes is a security company. I imagine they make money, but what's important is that they're an authority on Malware and reputable. They call Mac Keeper malware in this blog entry, and mention MacKeeper in 2 other weekly malware alert blogposts as well as another blog post about MacKeeper disguising itself as a Safari 7 update. --OKNoah (talk) 06:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)