Talk:Don't be evil

Adding Criticism
Again I plead to all, please do not use section "Use in criticism of Google" simply as a lazy second Criticism of Google. The purpose of this section is to document the cultural / historical phenomenon of using the Google motto in a critical way (and why). Edits should be clearly focused on this purpose, quotes should always be motto-centric (otherwise why use them?), and relevance should be clear to the casual section reader. Edit's language should support section readability as a whole (e.g. it shouldn't feel "random" or "spammy"). Edits not accepting burden-of-clarity toward the subheading should be removed and re-phrased. Scanf (talk) 07:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

For example, a major Guardian article ends with ''“Mai’s name will always be remembered with honor and power and blessings and love,” Khatami said at the end of his speech. But he urged Google to “stay consistent” with its own stated values of “don’t be evil”. so article language can be contributed focuses on that'', then the "why" as minor supporting, etc. The real effort is reducing something important like this to just a couple of well-written sentences so that it doesn't visually dominate everything else equally-important. I hope this helps.

Oh and please do not change the concluding sentence. I never met the editor who saw that re-arrangement was a good idea but it definitely works for the section as a whole and summarizes it's purpose well via reference. Very clever. Scanf (talk) 08:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Criticism
If we're going to criticise Google, perhaps reliable sources such as The New York Times or other publications of similar weight might be better than a political opinion blog?

It's rather like quoting the West Gippsland Gazette's editorial opinion strongly condemning Imperial Japan's agression in the 1930s. They had strong feelings, sure, and they were accurate, but did Japan read that particular paper and feel hurt at the savage criticism? --Pete (talk) 22:06, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Using Independent Australia as a source is very poor practice. This site has been discussed before and consensus is that it is not reliable.

Insisting that it is fine to use a fringey political opinion blog to attack Google in Wikipedia is not how we build a trustworthy encyclopaedia. I'd like to see some discussion on this. I have no problems with attacking Google; I just feel that we should use good sources to do so, not some blog pretending it is a newspaper with journalistic standards and ethics and so on. --Pete (talk) 20:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)


 * While I agree with you that Independent Australia is mostly WP:RSOPINION and usage should be subject to that policy, I'm not sure where your argument that they're a blog comes from? Their about page gives no indication that they're a blog. TarnishedPathtalk 06:00, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Pete The credibility of IA, as is the credibility of all commercial and even gov news outlets these days, not 100%. They are however considered a news source, and not everyone agrees they are so bad. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/independent-australia. I do get what you are saying, but the section in question is about use of the motto to criticize google in the media, right or wrong. Also Pete, it's possible that your preference for "big business" new source might be somewhat skewed? https://www.aaas.org/news/small-news-outlets-have-big-impact-public-discourse-study-finds. Sure "big" sources are important, but a balanced discussion might include "little guys", too. A discussion was opened on WP:RSN — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scanf (talk • contribs) 05:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)


 * OK I understand now. I still think that an exception should be made for "public reaction" but that's a rabbit hole too. Apologies. Scanf (talk) 00:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Remove entire criticism section
All criticism of Google tends to be linked in to the "Don't be evil" slogan, so this seems like duplication for me - better to just link to the existing article. I'll be bold and remove it if no-one shouts :-) ciphergoth (talk) 17:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * An anon user created a new "Criticism" section, again duplicating what Criticism of Google sets out. I deleted it again. Please could you give a reason to create this section before recreating it? ciphergoth (talk) 22:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't see this as a defence of a criticism section but rather a question of how it comes to be your mandate to repeatedly delete it. Why not edit and improve it?   You don't say that it was the work of vandalism but simply that in your opinion criticism is inappropriate.  To argue that criticism of the "motto" is criticism of Google and therefore MUST all be posted ONLY within that macro article seems illogical, as well as against wiki style guidance, as I understand it to be.  In this it is routine that larger articles get broken down, referencing "Main Articles" on particular aspects of the "parent" article(s).   Your logic for disallowing a criticism section here on the "motto", on the grounds that criticism of the "motto" is criticism of Google, would seem logically to lead to this entire article also being deleted/merged with that main article as it also refers solely to Google.  Critisism is a standard element of a wiki article, but here, that which has managed to escape your editing, may have done so as it is currently hidden inside an innovative meta-form.  One single citation is actually a link to no less than a DOZEN separate refeerences!  This must surely be unparalleled on Wiki?  Again, Google seems to have been singled out for special treatment, held to be above those mundane  ethical practices which constrain other enterprises.  I hope I have managed at least to begin to illustrate why the deep irony ecapsulated in Google's supposed "motto" combines with the insatiable growth of Google to focus criticism of such anti-ethical and amoral spinning.  Of course criticism of the "motto" will refer to Google.  It is Google's "motto"!  However, that changes nothing with respect to the need for a criticism section here.  I don't expect you to relent and have no appetite for pursuit of an editing war.  So this comment will have to suffice as a statement of rebellion against the new-newspeak. LookingGlass (talk) 21:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Everyone - When reading this article I was left with the incorrect impression that this motto was still in use. I have therefore re-instated a small "End of Don't be Evil" section to both update and conclude the article in some useful way. This is not an attempt to duplicate what Criticism of Google already sets out, but rather to connect to it in a way that a reader un-initiated with recent events can still easily follow.Scanf (talk) 10:48, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Google Quietly Drops Its 'Don't Be Evil' Motto
http://www.siliconvalleywatcher.com/mt/archives/2009/04/google_quietly.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.159.70.80 (talk) 18:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Unbelievable, stupefying.  But then I find Virgin's hip (or neo-ironic) approach to socio-political issues nauseating as well!  LookingGlass (talk) 21:19, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Apparently, the motto has been dropped indeed shortly after data collection with PRISM has started in January 2009 - if the slide is correct. In this view, the motto-dropping can be interpreted as sublimal information to the public that something has changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.8.67.86 (talk) 08:33, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The motto has not been dropped. It is included in Google's "Code of Conduct," as updated April 25, 2012 and current as of December 31, 2013. Neither the siliconevalleywatcher article nor the preceding comment provides any source for claiming the motto has been dropped. Link to the code is being added to main page. Michael D. Sullivan (talk) 22:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

In light of PRISM it could be google is sending a warning to its users "Don't be evil" as everything you do is recordeded and logged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.34.16.93 (talk) 03:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Officially the motto is still in the corporation's Code Of Conduct, as Michael D. Sullivan notes. I'm not so sure that the corporation follows that suggestion though recently the corporation has been fighting back, with its lawyers, against some of the Bush and Obama regimes' "USA PATRIOT Act"-inspired activities which the corporation seems to be somewhat conflicted about. The problem is that the corporation has evil men and women running it as well as good men and women, so the blanket motto covered in the extant article reflects history morethan it reflects a contemporary business ideal. Damotclese (talk) 16:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

--

This is silly. I just saw this in the news recently myself. What's actually happening here is journalists love click-bait articles, and certain people just love hearing 'shocking' news that punctures well-known people/companies/reputations/etc. At least the most recent "OMG Google abandons don't be evil" article had the good grace to issue a correction at the end that noted the article was bullshit. (See: http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/11/03/larry_page_says_that_google_needs_to_move_on_from_its_don_t_be_evil_mission.html, http://www.fastcompany.com/3037985/google-didnt-actually-say-it-was-ditching-dont-be-evil . Basically "Google announces intention to broaden beyond organizing the world's information" became "Google announces intention to abandon something unrelated.")

Even if you want to believe that Google *has* abandoned "Don't be evil", do you really think they'd ever announce or confirm it? How exactly is that press release going to read? Sheesh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.241.47 (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * They have dropped it. Why did it take you guys so long to accept it? Of course they will not do a press release that they have become more evil, which can be implied when the old motto is removed. 2A02:8388:1640:9D80:0:0:0:4 (talk) 19:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * As the source cited in the article's introduction clearly show, the motto has not been removed. The relation with Alphabet and its motto is sufficiently explained there. Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:36, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

NY Times source
An editor with more time, could add from this excellent reliable source http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/22/technology/dont-be-evil-but-dont-miss-the-tech-train.html Lentower (talk) 12:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Reliable? For what?  When did opinion become something capable of being classified as reliable?!?  Is it advising us that we may and indeed should leave our reason at the door when we read such hallowed words?  The seeming homogenous applause of the classicists when it comes to technology foe me is made obscene by virtue of the intelligence of those concerned and their astonishing ignorance.  This article seems to be no exception.  No boundaries have changed in terms of the public's concerns regarding corporate activity.  The "evidence" provided for seems to me to be a cum sic ergo propter sic argument.  What HAS changed though is the nature, extent and degree of the power of the new ICT corporations.  Yet apparently this is either an insignificant issue or has simply escaped the writer's attention.  I first witnessed this technophilic "fawning of the classicists" when I watched Jeremy Paxman's obsequious interview of Bill Gates for Newsnight sometime in the 90's I think (no mention on Google).  He was like a little girl at a private audience with an adored pop idol.  There seems to be something about this technology stuff, from those dark arts of maths and physics from school days, that now makes them as adults react with mouths agog, like children at a magic show clamouring for more, like groupies, proudly hugging their back stage passes.  Now, with this elephant in the room seemingly invisible to calibre writers such as those at the NYT or the Guardian, Stephen Fry, et al., appears to be the time for despair.  LookingGlass (talk) 21:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Anagram
Many times on the net you will find people saying "Don't be evil" is an anagram of "bet on Devil". Is this a true anagram?

Also it came to my attention more and more youtube accounts from people about violation of their human rights are disabled, even without informing the creator of content. For instance father was picked up by the police, the same eving the police brought him back without his teeth, bleeding, and a broken arm. Poster wants everyone to know, tapes his father uploads it on youtube, "This is called American justice!" Within a few hours account blocked, related Gmail erased. Is this what Eric Schmidt means with something you don't want others to know?

I suggest you try uploading a video of human rights being violated, or ironically Google for it, e.g. "Microsoft programmer found dead" a tape was taken offline by youtube, the full length video was about 34 Microsoft programmers killed or found dead, there names, their age, a testimony from Lucovsky about Ballmer "I did it before and I will do it again!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.90.7.128 (talk) 14:40, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not the only anagram - "Debt live on" is currently (May 2013) quite pertinent too! Revera (talk) 20:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

^Anagram / D...evil
It's more interesting that it begins with D and ends with evil: D on't be evil. It's hard to believe no one in PR/Advertising noticed that before rolling out the slogan. Someone could do a version in Google colors with the D and evil in red and the rest in the other colors. Just tossing that out there. If you've ever been on the business end of Google you'd know that it's anything but--184.63.132.236 (talk) 11:47, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

"You can make money without doing evil"
The current article has the line "On the user-facing, aforementioned 'What We Believe' page, Google appeared to replace the original motto altogether (a carefully reworded version stood as of 10 April 2015, "You can make money without doing evil",[5] which varied significantly from the absolute imperative of DON'T be evil)."

besides appearing to be fairly blatant original research, AFAICT there never was a replacement. The Wayback Machine has the page (at a slightly different URL) all the way back to 2004 and it's always had the same line: https://web.archive.org/web/20041221200238/http://www.google.com/intl/en/corporate/tenthings.html

Well, you can call it original research if you want, but that is exactly what the quoted webpage from Google said at the time cited. Your Wayback Machine citation from "slightly different URL" in no way disproved this. Citation reinstated.

In fact I just checked it again, and it still says exactly what is quoted in the Wiki : "You can make money without doing evil." This isn't "original research" - this is a direct quotation which after one year still stands! (27 January 2016)

Historic accuracy
The main article currently mentions "Between 21 April and 4 May 2018, Google removed the motto". I think we should ideally try to determine which day exactly. We may end up with unspecific "some time during these 14 days", which is not good for any archive, including wikipedia. I am sure removal must have taken place at a specific day, during that time. Is there no way to determine the exact day? 2A02:8388:1604:F600:3AD5:47FF:FE18:CC7F (talk) 19:49, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Pot calling the kettle black.
Google is satan incarnate. 73.236.181.2 (talk) 04:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC)