Jump to content

Talk:Forcepoint

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Websense)

.

Assistance Requested, Updating the Websense Wikipedia Page

[edit]

Hello Wiki community,

I’m on the public relations team for Websense. I’m writing you today to ask for your further assistance in organizing and clarifying the Websense Wikipedia page.

Recently there was a bit of an edit war between two users that dramatically changed the content of the page. As far as we are aware neither of those participants works for or is affiliated with Websense. The problem with the current content is that it does not accurately reflect our business. I’d like your feedback on how to correct factual errors or omissions. It is not our intent to make the entry a marketing piece, nor shy away from documented controversy. We’d like to supply omitted content and correct factual errors. We would like to work within this talk page to better clean up the page under Wikipedia guidelines. Based on the information below, would someone be willing to review the linked materials and update our business section to include our business category and description to reflect this background?

There are two issues that might be helpful background for you:

1. The business that Websense is in has evolved over the years. Phase one was “web filtering” or blocking access to certain sites. Put simply, for most customers that was “porn filtering”. Customers bought to stay compliant with HR rules and laws about respectful work environments. Phase two was about productivity. Companies bought advanced filtering to keep employees from wasting all day doing things like online gambling or social media. They could be blocked completely, allocated quote time, or set to certain hours (like lunch break). The current emphasis is all about security. All of those data breaches you read about? They usually start with targeted emails, get people to an infected website, download malicious code, and start sending confidential data out, usually for profit. Websense is all about keeping that whole chain (email security, web security, mobile security, data loss prevention) from occurring.

For further validation of our shift to email, web, mobile, and data security provider, please see

2. There are people who equate categorization and customer filtering with censorship and want to brand Websense as a censorship company. Be clear about this: we categorize sites and content (that’s porn, that’s gambling, that’s shopping, that’s hate speech, that’s religious, that’s sports, etc.-there are over 90 categories), and our customers choose what to block, allow, or limit. Companies have an absolute right—and sometimes even a legal responsibility—to block certain content. That is not censorship. And we work diligently to prevent misuse of our technology. For example, we worked with the ACLU to help schools realize that students should not be blocked from LGBT sites. And we will not sell to governments that would use our products for censorship (we have a record of remotely disabling misused product and for not bidding for or accepting business meant for censorship).

When we get a chance to explain this to activists they often become fans.

The challenge we have is that many of the most fervent contributors to date seem to have ignored these two important elements of our business. These contributors are those that have strayed the Websense Wikipedia entry from a neutral piece to one with clear agendas represented.

We look forward to ongoing discussions with all contributors and working with editors and WikiFairies to update the page in a sanctioned, impartial manner.

Best regards, Phogan83 (talk) 20:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, thank you for declaring your conflict of interest with this article in a responsible way. There is a very good guidline for editors with a COI that I urge you to read before proceeding. Furthermore, in light of the history of this article, I would strongly encourage you to steer completely away from any edits to the article itself, no matter how uncontroversial you may believe they may be.
Secondly, the best way for you to facilitate improvements to this article would be to provide verifiable and reliable sources for any changes. Most importantly, that means not relying on self-published or primary sources.Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go through the links provided and see what we can do with them - they should prove useful. We can use primary sources where they come from the subject of the article (Websense, in this case), but they can only be used in a limited sense, mostly to show Websense's position. In this case we need to be cautious, as we can't interpret the sources or use them as evidence for a claim, but solely as sources of content in themselves. I do think the article is better now than it was, but more work on it is certainly justified, and any help in that direction would be much appreciated. :) - Bilby (talk) 10:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Going to try to bring it more in line with competitors pages

[edit]

Article still seems heavily focused on a singular aspect of their business. Going to try to follow some examples from other entries on computer security firms and bring this more in line with the standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MazooSharktooth (talk • contribs) 16:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Has the HQ moved?

[edit]

User:204.15.64.200 changed this to an Austin, Texas based company. If that is actually true, you'll need a reference, as it contradicts the official web site. Mark Hurd (talk) 06:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, they intend to HQ in Austin, but I'd wait for their website to acknowledge it has actually changed. Mark Hurd (talk) 01:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Forcepoint. 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) 17:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

[edit]

Hi. I would like to help improve this page and bring it up to GA standards following WP:COI best practices. I see that dating back almost six years editors have said the page has a "negative tone" and "appears to have become a battleground over the politics of internet censorship" that is striking in "how little it says about the software and its working." @Bilby: is the only editor I've spotted on this Talk page that appears to still be active though.

I did prepare a draft that is more balanced with larger sections on corporate history and products, and smaller more proportional sections on criticisms and controversies. I basically have to write a draft as the impetus to do the research and become informed on what the sources say, but I am happy with whatever process editors are most comfortable with in terms of my bringing the page up to GA with a COI. CorporateM (Talk) 18:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CorporateM, I will look at it when I get a chance. Geraldshields11 (talk) 14:01, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Geraldshields11:! Let me know if there's anything I can do to be more helpful. CorporateM (Talk) 00:36, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed the last line of the lede of the draft, minor thing, may still need tweaking. You removed the mention about libraries, and I can't help but feel that something should be included as that is a particularly useful bit of information. There is a lot of buy/sell information on the company, and perhaps some minor gaps like the library. The products section is a bit verbose, like it was written once sentence per cite, where the prose could be smoothed out a bit and still keep the cites, maybe 2 or 3 per sentence. Not a deal breaker, just an observation that the prose can be made a bit more readable. The new version is a little better than the old, except the missing library info, which I think is critical for this kind of an article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:13, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Dennis Brown:. The mention of libraries was unsourced, so for now I just copy/pasted it into the draft with a CN. I did a bit of trimming of the Products section. I also copyedited your change in the Lead a bit, because "can't prevent a government from indirectly obtaining" sounds defensive to me. I just put that governments do in-fact obtain the products indirectly, rather than saying it is impossible to prevent. CorporateM (Talk) 13:33, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@CorporateM: I've copyedited the draft, which is definitely better than the existing version of the article. I generally agree with dropping the large number of negative comments that come from blogs, organizations, and other places that aren't particularly good secondary sources. However, I don't believe that citations 22 and 24 are included in the new draft, even though (at least at first glance) these seem to be reliable sources. Could you comment on why you omitted these? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@John Broughton: Citation 22 in the current article is citation 43 in the draft. Citation 24 looks like a good publication (Georgia Library Quarterly), but if you follow the link, I think the reason I didn't include it is because I'm not really sure what it is. CorporateM (Talk) 19:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with it being copy/merged. It would be nice to get sources on the library thing, but if they don't exist, they don't exist and it should be removed. My main concern is that if the software is being used in libraries and there is controversy, that is a very reasonable thing to expect to be included due to 1st Amendment concerns, but again, only if it can be sourced. IMHO, that isn't a negative about the company, but rather, a demonstration how good software can be used in controversial ways, which is consistent with the lede. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:28, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@CorporateM:@Dennis Brown: Okay, citation 24 is problematical because although it's an article, it's written as if it were a blog, which (IMHO) makes it impossible to cite as a source - that would bewilder anyone following the link, even if we could find a sentence or two that seemed authoritative.
So, back to the larger issue. I'm fine with the draft, as is - every reliable source regarding the library controversy was retained, so to the extent that content has been removed, it wasn't usable anyway. I'd prefer to put the burden on future contributors to find anything that they consider to be missing, because I'd like to get the improved version up and be done with that. Which raises the question of who does the copy/paste to replace the existing version with the new draft (if that's how it's done). I'm okay with CorporateM doing this, but if Dennis would prefer to do it, that's great, and if Dennis would prefer that CorporateM not do it, and doesn't want to do it himself, I'm okay with doing it. So let's decide and close this out. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For copyright purposes, if he is going to copy/paste, CorporateM should do the work since it is his work. Or I could hist-merge the two, which is technically the better way but takes lots of steps and is only really an issue if many people have contributed significant portions, which is not the case. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:57, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Dennis Brown: and @John Broughton: regardless of the consensus much of the current criticisms are poorly sourced, at some point I will be accused of malfeasance by anti-COI advocates or an editor with a strong opinion on the subject-matter for reducing their prominence. I don't think it is a good idea in that context for me to merge the draft, when consensus is that I am supposed to request it be done by another. CorporateM (Talk) 10:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • CorporateM et al., I was about to do the merge for you, but I can't find much of the material from the old "Blocking errors" section in there, and there are some significant criticism (from the ACLU, for instance). Getting your website blocked if someone drops some porn in a comment can't be good, and that brought up broader concerns, and the Cisco thing looks exciting--now, this isn't much, maybe, but it's something. Having "the-strippers.com" blocked doesn't really weigh up against the more important criticisms. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:34, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies: I think these are the very sources editors have been saying are problematic? The ACLU source is a press release from an advocacy group. I did a quick Google News search to see if their criticisms of Forcepoint have gotten media attention, but didn't find any. This is a personal blog from a self-described "activist." The Register is a tabloid that is not a reliable source. At a glance, The Wall Street Journal source does not appear to have any information not already included with other sources. I am in class right now, but can take a closer look tomorrow. CorporateM (Talk) 21:02, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you're in class don't be texting! The "self-described activist" apparently authored that OpenNet report that the WSJ discussed, so it's not nothing and possibly deserves to be discussed, and the ACLU isn't just any "advocacy group"--if it were I wouldn't have brought it up. Nor do I think The Register can be discarded so quickly. Maybe you can riddle me this: if those outfits get critiqued, like by the ACLU, do they do anything about it? It would seem to obvious to me to do that, certainly in the age of social media--though clearly not everything goes viral. Anyway, I appreciate you looking into this. Drmies (talk) 21:10, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The ACLU release ties into the library issue. As far as The Register is concerned, they might take a light hearted view of some topics (and commanding use of the English language), but I consider them a reliable source for my reading. Has any consensus found them failing WP:RS before? I would be surprised, as they are vetted and professional in their journalism, even if it is peppered with frequent irreverence. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:10, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the link I provided in my comment above to a Reliable Sources Noticeboard discussion on The Register. To be honest, these comments supporting press releases, blogs and tabloids as reliable sources for major controversy are really baffling to me, but if that's what you guys want, I'll put them all in the draft this weekend. CorporateM (Talk) 23:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That discussion does not conclude with a consensus that The Register is unreliable. Actually, it is a piss poor example of consensus building as it was all conjecture and no facts, something a handful of people accused The Register of, then they supported their ideas with the same lameness. I could call that discussion "no consensus". You might could qualify it, "The Register reported...", or search more. I find it hard to believe no one else wrote about the effects with libraries. And pardon me for being lame, I'm just tied on time, as I told you at the start. I don't think it *has* to be in there, but it seems odd without it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:41, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown: @Drmies: @John Broughton: I have added the press release from the Rhode Island chapter of the ACLU (which adds the library criticism), the blog post from writer and activist Jillian York, the piece from The Register, and the Wall Street Journal (which did have a couple very small snippets of new information for the page) to [[[User:CorporateM/Forcepoint|the draft]]. Mostly I just copy/pasted what was in the current article, while formatting the cites, etc.. Let me know if there's anything else and thanks for chipping in! CorporateM (Talk) 17:12, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Forcepoint. 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) 15:08, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV check

[edit]

I urge folks watching this article to consider doing their own searches for sources to ensure that this is truly NPOV.

As of the summer there were discussions about spinning off Forcepoint via an IPO or sale, and quite often buffing up the WP page is part of the PR around doing that. Jytdog (talk) 02:01, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Passes my smell test. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Forcepoint/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: CookieMonster755 (talk · contribs) 15:48, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Overview

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    The prose looks good, and is clear. I found no spelling or grammar errors.
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    So far, the article does not currently comply with the manual of style guidelines as GA criteria states. The lead section does not accurately summarize the key information about the joint venue. MOS:LEAD states As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate. This article is large enough, and sourced enough, to contain more information that should be summarized in the lead. Currently, the lead talks too much about the company renaming and its acquisition, and should focus on a brief overall history of the company, and more about what the company does and its influence. If this can be fixed before the end of the review, I will pass this criteria. However, it fails to meet this GA criteria right now. I would recommend that the Websense and Forcepoint sections be renamed to 1994–2014 and 2014–present, respectively. I also recommend that censorship become its own section.
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    Citations do not follow MOS:REF. Especially in the § Websense section, citations are cluttered, with multiple citations spread across a single sentence (ex. Websense was founded in 1994[3] by Phil Trubey[4] during the dot-com boom[5] under the name NetPartners.[6]) This is not necessary and does not follow the layout style guidelines. Please read Wikipedia:Citing sources#Avoiding clutter, WP:MINREF and WP:CITEDENSE.
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    All citations reference a reliable source.
    C. It contains no original research:
    No original research – information uses inline citations that reference reliable, independent sources.
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    No copyright or plagiarism violations.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    Much of the article does address main aspects and is on scope, however, the § Products is vague when it comes to the name, description, use and influence of the product, which should be improved to have the article include main aspects. This should be improved before passing.
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
    The article does stay focused on the subject, and does not go into unnecessary detail. It has summarized information about the subject that complies with summary style. Pass.
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
    Yes, the article does represent viewpoints fairly. No issue here.
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    No edit wars. Relatively stable.
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    Trademarked logo has appropriate licensing tags.
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    This article will be placed on hold until the above failed criteria is addressed and fixed. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me here or on my talk page. The failed criteria should be fixed or addressed within 7 days (or a different amount of time, depending on how busy the nominator is and if they request more time) or this article will fail. Thank you. CookieMonster755✉ 15:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC) [reply]
    This article has failed because it has not met the criteria set by GAN. Nominator did not fix pending issues. Feel free to fix issues and nominate again in the future. CookieMonster755✉ 20:01, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

See above

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Forcepoint&oldid=1207621455"