Talk:Wickr

Assessing

Could someone reassess this page? I feel uncomfortable doing it myself since I expanded it so much. I believe both its quality and importance ratings are now higher. DaltonCastle (talk) 05:51, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

To me it feels like one big advertisement and very bloated. Parts consist of mainly citation. I have to read pages to find just one or two technical details about how it works. It seems to be citing only sources that praise it for excellence, not e.g. an evaluation by the EFF where it is found to fulfil only 4 out of 7 critical security criteria, whereas quite a bunch of others score 7/7.--Kulandru mor (talk) 18:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Widefox; talk 09:24, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree. It might be a good idea to split the article into Wickr Inc. and Wickr (software). --Dodi 8238 (talk) 11:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC) [edited 13:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)]

Split

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There should be a section for discussing splitting it, so in the absence of one, this is it:

• Strong Oppose & Procedural close I see no case made here, or reasons, and none are obvious to me, and the issues with the article are not fixed by splitting. Is the company even notable? Widefox; talk 20:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

@Widefox: This article appears to be predominantly about Wickr Inc., not about Wickr (software). --Dodi 8238 (talk) 22:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Procedural close @Dodi 8238: Suggest either making a case for splitting (and putting at the top here) or removing the tag. Snapchat isn't split. Doubly oppose any dab. Suggest procedural close as this is a non-starter. Widefox; talk 13:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Closed --Dodi 8238 (talk) 13:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remaining sections

I've gone through most of the article and reduced it significantly so that it's easier to read, isn't 90% quotes, and is mostly-relevant information. I haven't double-checked any of the sources, and my brain started to melt before I could do the sections Users and Personnel. I was really tempted to put in a section called "vague and grandiose statements by the founders" but I felt that would probably undermine my work somewhat. So anyway, if anyone wants to tackle the remaining over-quotey sections, go for it. Cassian (talk) 23:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits

Hi! So I wanted to start a discussion here if those two new editors still feel the page should have significant content removed. While Im sure they had good intentions, sourced information like that can't just be taken down.DaltonCastle (talk) 17:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

What SilverCal10 did was that he took the time to go through each section and remove what's irrelevant. Had he given a summary of changes, none of this discussion would have ever arose. Since he is a new editor, maybe his mistake can be overlooked, and his contribution of having the patience to go through the article and edit it --which none of us have-- be recognized. I suggest the content removed by SilverCal10 remain removed. RedBookCamel (talk) 03:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I have nice sourced material on migratory birds. Should I include it in this article too? Aasasd (talk) 10:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

No need to get snarky. The point of this section is to describe the personnel of the company, including Sell. This information gives background of Sell's motivations for founding the company. Since little is known about Sell and no article exists for her, this content seems appropriate to include. DaltonCastle (talk) 21:10, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I can't agree with that. The article, as it stands now, is still appallingly long, to the point that it offends the sanity of anyone trying to extract the actual details of the application's workings and security. It reads more like a company profile from a business magazine, and notably, it contains an excessive number of the words 'Sell' and 'she'. If Sell doesn't deserve an article of her own, why should the same info on her occupy this one? I don't believe all information should be copied from sources—because Wikipedia isn't a magazine. And, as a web programmer, I don't see how the color of anyone's business cards relates to the workings of a chat app (and won't use Skype for my private chats even if Qi Lu buys some black ones). At least, give Sell a section of her own so that the reader can skip it altogether; but the rest of the article should be summarized (a lot), to increase content to noise ratio. Aasasd (talk) 23:34, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, that is a valid point. I can address some of these concerns in the coming weeks (currently working on another article). However, since most of the sources come from interviews with Sell, for the sake of following WP:ATT it is simpler to include it instances. DaltonCastle (talk) 00:13, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, in several sections, such as the Background, noting her involvement is undeniably the most notable part of the article, since Wickr is her brainchild. DaltonCastle (talk) 00:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposed new version of article

I work for Wickr. I have followed the discussion above about the length and scope of the article. I agree that a more concise and focused version of the article would better serve Wikipedia's readers. Along with my colleagues, I have drafted a version of the article which I believe more closely aligns with Wikipedia's standards. I hope other editors will review it and consider replacing the current version of the article. See here: User:Hjd555/sandbox

Please note, I am not arguing that the article needs to stay this short; but I believe our draft will provide a better foundation for improving the article going forward, than the current version. I look forward to any improvements other Wikipedians wish to make (either before or after publishing this draft). -Hjd555 (talk) 17:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm, interesting proposal. My main concern here is how much reliably sourced content is removed in your draft. When reliable sourcing exists, its better to have more content than less.DaltonCastle (talk) 17:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

@Aasasd, RedBookCamel, and Lottiotta: Could you take a look at my proposed shorter version? -Hjd555 (talk) 16:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I like this new proposed version better than the current version. It cuts out a lot of trivia and does a much better job of defining and sticking to its subject. In the proposed version, the subject is Wickr Inc. and its main product is discussed in a dedicated section. I would, however, change the title of that section from "Operation" to something else that better reflects that the section is about Wickr the software. I would also move the {{Infobox software}} template down to that section and add an {{Infobox company}} template to the top of the article. I, too, think that the proposed version could be a better foundation going forward. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 21:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Greetings again! I have reviewed your proposed draft and I can support it. It is a little more succinct and to the point. DaltonCastle (talk) 23:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, I am in favor of these changes and believe you can go ahead and proceed with a consensus. DaltonCastle (talk) 23:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I have implemented the changes heretofore discussed. -Hjd555 (talk) 21:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)