Jump to content

Talk:Adware

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

Disambiguated and split

[edit]

Following adding a large number of references to the section addressing each use of the term, I've split this article into Advertising-supported software and Adware (malware). When the term adware is presented in the lede for the former, and it is made clear that it's a contraction for the longer term - there's no conflict. I've also made sure that each of the two articles has a section discussing the differing usages of the term. — Hex (❝?!❞) 16:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the splitting of the article because looking through the resultant articles, I'm not seeing a strong need for two different articles, and the sources themselves don't seem to warrant it either. In fact the resultant article Advertising-supported software notes that "Disagreement over the boundaries of the two forms of software, and how precisely the short term applies to either, is common" If reliable sources don't have a clear separation between the two, I don't think Wikipedia should ignore that and form its own separation, unless there's something I've overlooked here. Given that there's sometimes a very fine line on which one any given piece of software would fall under, perhaps it should be discussed in a single article, since the two articles created devote more prose into explaining the difference between the two than actually addressing the subject itself. - SudoGhost 16:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The need for two articles is painfully clear. If you read the archives of this talk page, there's been disagreement here over the definition of the term since 2005. That means something is wrong.
  • The reliable sources refer to two different things using the same word. The split articles carefully define each of the two meanings and cross-relate to each other. They "devote more prose into explaining the difference between the two" because it's extremely important to clarify the difference. There's not much in each on the subject itself because they're stubs! You did see the stub templates, right?
  • Leaving both meanings under the same title, "Adware", creates an unacceptable conflict between the two camps using the word, and will only lead to more disagreements in future on other articles of the nature demonstrated in discussions above this one. Look at the discussion above about whether a split is necessary; it's completely confused because most of the participants have differing opinions on whether "adware" is or isn't a pejorative term, when in fact it is and isn't.
I worked long and hard on resolving this interminable argument. Please don't throw it in the trash (including my updates to the article text, which only existed in the split versions) with a knee-jerk reaction. I mean no offense by that. — Hex (❝?!❞) 17:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that you worked on the content, I don't doubt that for a moment. But bold edits sometimes get reverted, that's part of the process of improving Wikipedia. However, there's been disagreement over the definition of the term since well before 2005, but that's not a Wikipedia-specific disagreement, the fact that the disagreement exists should be reflected in the article. There is no set definition of the term, and the lines between the "two" definitions you proposed vary wildly. It's not a black and white thing but rather a very grey concept, and I think the solution is to document that grey, not to try to cordon off different "preferred" meanings. - SudoGhost 17:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know about BRD, yes.
As I noted above, I took specific pains to document the grey area issue, presenting it in each of the articles - as you pointed out. That came with a fantastic citation that specifically covered the difficulty. The split didn't assign any "preferred" meanings, it reflected current usage, as reflected in the citations. It made very clear that adware and advertising-supported software are synonyms - even though it is extremely difficult to find a reliable source that specifically defines "adware" in the sense of advertising-supported software. So I was being generous to those who use it with that meaning - if I were to assess this by our standards of reliable sources alone, "adware" would only exist in the pejorative sense. Try doing a Google search for "adware -malware -spyware".
The status quo is totally unacceptable; it makes it impossible to link to the specific meaning of advertising-supported software - a term that is firmly defined by numerous reliable sources - without arriving at a page with an enormously value-laden title that implies something different.
Let's break it down. You know as well as I do that we operate by reporting secondary sources. I've located sources for the following assertions:
  • advertising-supported software is a business model
  • advertising-supported software is sometimes called adware
  • there is a form of malware called adware
  • the form of malware called adware is ill-defined
What specific assertions are you making by restoring the status quo, and what sources do you have for them? — Hex (❝?!❞) 17:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I noticed the pains taken by each of the two articles. The result, however, was that each of the two articles dedicated more prose into trying to justify the split than actually addressing the content itself. Google searches are not reliable sources, we can't justify an article's split based on specific search criteria. The search you described is a poor reflection of reliable sources; if you type "what is adware" into Google, for example, you get a very different picture, as you would be entering "adware definition -wikipedia". Entering these terms into Google, it is no longer "extremely difficult" to find reliable sources that specifically define aware in the ad-supported sense. - SudoGhost 18:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The "specific assertion" I am making is that these two subjects are not mutually exclusive, which is what splitting the article is suggesting. That adware sometimes contains malicious code and is a concern to people does not mean that adware that contains malicious code is a separate topic mutually exclusive from any other form. The sources you used on the Adware (malware) split do not define Adware in this mutually exclusive way,[1][2] but rather reinforces the point I'm trying to make. These references you used don't suggest that Adware (malware) is in any way different than Advertising-supported software. Reliable sources don't reflect this "there is a form of malware called adware, and it's not part of any advertising-supported software business model" assertion. - SudoGhost 18:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The FTC source clearly indicates that there are differing versions of "adware" with different connotations. The reliable sources that discuss advertising-supported software - as produced at length in the article you casually threw away instead of attempting to fix - do not define it as anything but a business model.
Anyway, I no longer care. I made a difficult and sustained effort to fix this article, and nobody else is interested in doing anything but retaining the status quo and having arguments. So, whatever, I'm gone. — Hex (❝?!❞) 14:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bold edits get reverted, that's part of editing on Wikipedia. The reliable sources do not support any such split; there are indeed sources that describe adware as a business model, but this does not support splitting the article because many, many sources say that adware, which is a business model, is sometimes used in a malicious way or in a way that is unwanted by users. This malicious way is not somehow "not a business model" when reliable sources make no such distinction (especially if this is the FTC source you're referring to, which comes nowhere close to "clearly indicating that there are differing versions of "adware" with different connotations", and certainly not in any way that would warrant splitting the article in such a manner). - SudoGhost 15:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous wording

[edit]

"Programs have been developed to detect, quarantine, and remove advertisement-displaying malware, including Ad-Aware, AdwCleaner, Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware, Spyware Doctor and Spybot - Search & Destroy." Are the list items examples of "Programs [that] have been developed to detect..." or examples of "advertisement-displaying malware..."? If the answer seems obvious to you, you probably already knew the answer. The point of articles like this is to provide information to those who do NOT already know. The fact is that many "bad" malware programs masquerade under helpful-sounding names similar to the ones listed, so it can't even be argued that the answer is obvious from the names. The section needs to be reworded because at the moment it is ambiguous.

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Adware. 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:

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) 10:10, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Adware. 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:

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) 05:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I have put in a request for Advertisement injection at WP:COMPREQ. It is relevant to adware, but seems to be a particular combination of (sometimes legal) packet injection methods. Tule-hog (talk) 19:10, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Adware&oldid=1252601893"