Talk:Don't be evil/Archive 1

Removed article link
I think the article http://www.ftrain.com/GoogleIP.html linked to as "How the Don't Be Evil philosophy enhanced Google's brand image" is uninteresting and poorly written, so I will take the link out. Take it back if you disagree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.65.81.164 (talk) 18:06, 29 April 2005‎ (UTC)


 * Um, anyone who read that article would see it is a big joke. What was it doing linked there in the first place? --FrogMonster — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.37.89.4 (talk) 18:04, 18 August 2005‎ (UTC)

Old RfD from moved page
From WP:RfD:


 * Don't be evil &rarr; Google -- Delete, obvious vandalism. --Blackcap | talk 20:34, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. "Don't be evil" is Google's "informal corporate motto", . The redirect is appropriate. -- BD2412 talk 21:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I didn't know that, just hit this on RC patrol. Nomination withdrawed. I've changed the redirect to point to Don't Be Evil rather than Google. --Blackcap | talk 22:54, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Controversy
Does anyone else disagree that there should be any controversy regarding what google did in china? I don't consider it evil, because google had to choose between not including a few specific pages in their search results or having the chinese government firewalls block all users in china from using google at all... -Raggedtoad — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.33.62.75 (talk) 21:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Clueless people seem to think that their judgments are relevant to Wikipedia -- they aren't. It doesn't matter what you think is or is not evil, only what has been stated in reliable sources. -- 98.108.211.71 (talk) 03:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah I get it, you think your the best and your really full of yourself but Rag wasn't saying his opinion should be put here. He was saying the china thing should be mentioned but that he doesn't see it as an "evil" act.

Clearly he was right since it's there now. I guess you were just being another asshole that thinks he alone gets to decide what should be on wikipedia. And people wonder what websites tyrants go too.... 209.40.209.76 (talk) 10:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

"Controversy" section
Much of the "Controversy" section seems to lack NPOV when discussing the controversies and needs citations. --mtz206 04:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think my feelings that Google Groups violates "Don't Be Evil" by hosting discussions in which people trade passwords and hacking tips is pretty clearly shared by others and is a legitimate controversy. I could find quotes from others who are unhappy about hacking instruction, and I could probably find terms of agreement from the porn websites that people are trading passwords for that say it's not allowed. I didn't express it as my POV, just a POV, which is what controversies are based on and which is appropriate for the article. Here's how I phrased it:
 * "'Conversely, the moral integrity of some websites indexed by Google's search engine and of some newsgroups accessible through Google Groups, such as those featuring hacking discussion and trading of passwords, is in question. While some would see Google as opposing free speech for filtering such content, others accuse Google of facilitating illegal acts.'"
 * -Barry- 10:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You need to provide citations that your feelings are indeed "pretty clearly shared by others." Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought nor a soapbox. --mtz206 14:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * They're newsgroups that Google allows people access to for posting software exploits, lockpicking instruction, and sharing passwords for access to various websites. You know very well that there are many people who are against that. I'm going to put back at least my criticism later. Here's one anti-hacker reference from http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/Hearings/11192003hearing1133/print.htm :


 * "...I do agree with certainly Microsoft and others in the industry on one key point....we are always happy to give recognition to those researchers who find fault and say thank you, we have fixed it, and we tell our customers.


 * "There are a group of researchers for whom thank you and potentially hiring them for bettering your software is not enough. They want your scalp, and one of the ways they get that is by releasing exploit code at forums such as Black Hat and other hacker conventions.'"


 * Also see page 37 (page 49 of 80 in my PDF viewer), number 13 at http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/mime/open.pdf?Item=965 for specific mention of what goes on in the newsgroups you can find on Google.


 * As I said in a previous edit summary, I won't be doing business with Google because of them facilitating this stuff.


 * -Barry- 15:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've added mention of "morally questionable content in Google Groups" to this section. That should suffice, although I still feel each of these "controversies" needs a citation indicating they are more than just one person's opinion. --mtz206 16:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'll keep it in your words. An anti-hacker website might be a good thing to cite if you want a citation, if it contains relevant comments. I didn't look for the very best reference for linking from the article. Footnotes are kind of discouraged by Wikipedia because some other publications have stopped using them, but a references section should be OK if you're inclined to add one. -Barry- 23:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

That's not about Google being evil, it's about normal people using Google for evil stuff. Why blame Google for having users trading passwords on their groups?

There has been a somewhat spammy section which some conspiracy theorists claim Google is tied to the CIA but neither cites evidence or makes sense. I've edited to make it more NPOV although removal would seem more appropriate 66.240.48.106 19:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The section still seems to be biased. LN3000 21:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I have modified the section with the official response from Google to the accusations of censorship, and I believe it is no longer POV. Swap (talk) 13:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

""Don't be evil" is said to recognize that large corporations often maximize short-term profits with actions that destroy long-term brand image and competitive position. Supposedly, by instilling a Don't Be Evil culture the corporation establishes a baseline for honest decision-making that disassociates Google from any and all cheating. This in turn can enhance the trust and image of the corporation that outweighs short-term gains from violating the Don't Be Evil principles." Really?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.23.77 (talk) 05:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

External link to Milton Friedman
This isn't really about Google or "Don't be Evil" specifically but is about CSR ingeneral so I'm gonna cut it her and put it at Corporate social responsibilityA Geek Tragedy 21:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

"Morally questionable"
This seems to be a fairly odd claim that may be borderline OR / personal opinion, and, given the way the Usenet works (and how broad is the meaning of "hacking instructions"), may be entirely out of place. Are there any sane sources (say, a newspaper article) that discuss this controversy? --lcamtuf 20:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Patents?
Is Google involved in any (unethical?) patent situations like Amazon when it tried to patent the "1-click" technology? It would be nice to know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.190.215.200 (talk) 18:57, 3 June 2007‎ (UTC)

Controversy: Don't Be Good
Google, like any other public corporation for profit, has to put investor's interests first over social responsibility. It's just a general aspect of everyday capitalism. It's nice they try to impose a motto on themselves, but in the end the CEO must convince the shareholders, or be replaced by somebody who will. Therefore Don't Be Evil can only be seen as a nice gesture. To actually live by such a motto requires you to abandon the corporate principle and choose the non-profit path. The limited liability company is a company structure more suitable for social responsibility, as it isn't controlled by a rather anonymous large group of people, but by a few morally aware ones. Thus the controversy in this article is a bit redundant, since the entire idea of a corporation not being evil is controversial by definition. So maybe it belongs into the definition of the article? --lynX 13:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

What are you saying - that evil is the root of all money ? That unless you're prepared to "do evil", you won't make any big profits ? Please expalin your comment to a simpleton like me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.138.168.173 (talk) 05:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Nice gesture? More like Big Lie. 74.78.162.229 (talk) 19:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Exactly. The slogan is just an empty PR phrase. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.85.234.218 (talk) 02:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That's not how Google is structured. They have two classes of stock, with their founders and CEO holding stock that votes at 10x normal value. http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/2004-05-16-google-nonvoting_x.htm) The CEO isn't as vulnerable to that sort of thing here, so they could live by such a model without being replaced.

Merennulli (talk) 19:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be saying the profit must be evil? that seems to be a strange idea. And definitely pov. I would advise not editing the article to indicate that. A company that provides something for me that I want at a profit for them (and ultimately me because I would not buy/use the product if I did not think it was worth it) is not doing any wrong, as long as the product is as advertised and I willingly entered into the agreement.- anon

Clueless morons pontificate on talk pages; editors contribute sourced material. -- 98.108.211.71 (talk) 03:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

So where does that leave '98.108.211.71'? Anyway, the comments on this topic are interesting, but, writing as someone who actually has a degree that includes philosophy, I don't see how to address the topics in the body of the article in a way that fits within the narrow scope of Wikipedia--even with sources. (I'm currently reading Rawl's revised Theory of Justice, just for grins.) On the one hand, I'd say that Google's power and influence do confer some responsibility as the Internet becomes an ever larger cesspool. On the other hand, Google didn't (yet) create the laws that define cancerous growth and corporate EVIL as the only way to avoid stockholder lawsuits... In short, reducing any complicated moral question to a 1-D metric assures failure. It would be convenient if real value was always measured by money, but in reality, there are plenty of ways to make money that are NOT good. Shanen (talk) 01:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Google Ad
Does anyone else see this page as a very unsubtle advertisement for Google? Hisownspace 16:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I don't see it. Matt.T.911 (talk) 22:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do.

"Because Google holds great power over the information the public relies on, the company recognizes a fiduciary duty to uphold the public trust by refusing payments that would influence the information they provide to users. The company holds themselves to journalism ethics and standards even when they could earn more money in the short term by violating those standards."

tooooooo pro-Google.... Elncid (talk) 10:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

this article could have been written by google. it is full of only company quotes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.150.72.109 (talk) 22:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

"Don't be evil" (sentence case)
I'm going to redirect the page to the sentence case version of "Don't be evil" since that is how it is rendered on Google's own Code of Conduct page, as well as in this Wired article. -- Zim Zala Bim talk  01:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The Ad Business and Being Evil
Google by revenue is an ad company. They make money by selling ads.

Isn't an ad company inheritantly evil? They need to collect personal info in order to target people. They need to deliver ads that many times prop up what they are selling in dubious manners. And instead of accepting a fair price for a service or product, their goal is to get you to buy other products and services as payment for theirs. So the actual cost is hidden, instead of fairly presented.

Nothing is wrong with this of course, it is just how ad companies operate, which is usually in an evil fashion, by nature of what it is to get people to view ads and buy things.

So, as google is an ad company, they are by definition evil.

Should this be referenced in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JulianB12 (talk • contribs) 11:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think, that ads are generelly evil, because nobody is forced to buy things becausse of ads and everyone can use his mind to think about what he has seen/read in the ads and if he doesn't, it's his own fault. Of course some ads may be evil, but google doesn't make theses ads, it just displays them. The only thing about the google ads which I find evil is, that they store everything you searched for years. --Qaywsxedc (talk) 10:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think a debate about what 'evil' means should probably go on the Evil article talk page. I agree with you: "Google is an ad company". I disagree with you: "An ad company is inherently evil" - there's no justification for this statement. You simply state it as a given fact. And while many people may agree with you, unless you can prove it (I refer you to my comment on 'what is evil'), it is not a fact, it is just an opinion. Furthermore, whether or not ad companies are evil does not negate the fact that "Don't be evil" is/was Google's informal company motto. Therefore, the morality of ad companies is a moot point.Legion722 (talk) 16:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Clueless morons pontificate on talk pages; editors contribute sourced material. -- 98.108.211.71 (talk) 03:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.108.211.71 (talk)

Censorship deal with China
The article says that Google's support center withdrew its claim that it does not censor any search after reaching a deal with China. Question: does this claim no longer apply to search results in China, or worldwide? After all a deal is a deal and the Chinese could have demanded changes in other search servers (though obviously not with the same visibility). 70.15.116.59 (talk) 23:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Some of Google's services are anti-society. For exmaple, when we search "mother" on google, Google may mislead searchers to the evil topics such as "mother and son fuck", "mother and son fornication"... by providing its automatic associational search key words list. Such phenomenons also exist on some other search engines. -218.83.159.14 (talk) 09:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Non sequitur pontification. -- 98.108.211.71 (talk) 03:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Just a quesiton
What is "evil" according to google? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.231.158.68 (talk) 10:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Apparently not censorship. And apparently they don't view censorship as an exploitation of the user either. Google may be changing the software industry, but they're not changing the English language. They're not that powerful... yet. Amwestover (talk) 23:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

See Google:Verb Xxobot

Contradiction
Doesn't "Don't Be Evil" contradict what the "Google Maps Street View" is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.83.37.3 (talk) 03:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Too pro-Google?
I certainly don't want the article to be some tirade against Google, but it seems to me that the article - well, mostly just the abstract - reads in a very positive, salesman-like light. Anyone object to reworking the language a little bit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordanp (talk • contribs) 09:02, 19 August 2008‎ (Utc)


 * Please sign and date your comments so people don't have to look at the history to see when they were made and thus how relevant they are. -- 98.108.211.71 (talk) 03:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

New Controversy?
Google has recently begun testing changes to iGoogle, their portal interface. To do so, they selected an apparently random group of users and switched them over to the test version - which I'll mention does not work. As a control to their test, they chose not to offer an opt-out. Any test involving people which is not optional for those being tested on is not ethical. Also mentioning this in the iGoogle article discussion in case it should be there instead.

http://www.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=97658

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/01/google_personal_homepage_brouhaha/

Merennulli (talk) 19:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Another new controversy
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&taxonomyName=Software&articleId=9117279&taxonomyId=18&pageNumber=1 In the terms and conditions of the Google android fine print Google has said they "may discover a product that violates the developer distribution agreement ... in such an instance, Google retains the right to remotely remove those applications from your device at its sole discretion". --200.73.30.108 (talk) 14:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Amit Patel
Amit Patel(stated as a Google employee) listed in this article redirects to a page about a heart surgeon. How is he a Google employee? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.242.29.27 (talk) 16:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Paragraph 2 (DBE defined) source?
I love paragraph 2's minutiae-level explanation of what "Don't be Evil" means in terms of profit, relationships, trust and time. And it really sounds like it's based on quotes or interviews. ...but it cites no sources. Do we have one?

(I am not questioning the legitimacy of that paragraph, but I'm considering citing it for a blog post, and I'd prefer something more solid than "Well Wikipedia says it mans this...") -Deriksmith (talk) 18:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Three wise monkeys
Related to the Three wise monkeys perhaps. 92.29.57.199 (talk) 17:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Steve Jobs quote
As of 02/12/2010, the page reads "Also in January of 2010, Apple CEO Steve Jobs strongly critized the slogan. This was due to their intentions to attack a part of Apple's business in the mobile market."

Is it just me or is the second sentence only someone's interpretation? The linked article says that Jobs discussed competition from Google and the motto in sequence, not that there was any sort of causality. In fact, "one more thing" implies these are two separate statements made on a same occasion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.172.96.13 (talk) 21:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Relevance of blogger opinions?
There's been a bunch of noise in the media lately over the Google/Verizon deal, but once you strip away all the weasel words, all you're left with that's verifiable is the existence of a handful of rants from bloggers. I'm not sure this is really encyclopedic, or that it's got anything to do with "don't be evil". Opinions? Can anybody think of anything that's both verifiable and relevant here? Asuffield (talk) 12:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Several people have now attempted to edit the claim to imply more than the cited article demonstrates. I'm not aware of anybody attempting to do an accurate study of popular opinion on this subject, and it would fall under the heading of "original research" to do it here, so I can't see any way these broader claims could be substantiated. Also nobody seems willing to defend the relevance of that article. I'll take it out if there's no reactions by Monday. Asuffield (talk) 11:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not worth my time to fight over such things, but calling these comments "rants" is not at all neutral and claiming that they are only from "bloggers" is erroneous. And "widely" is not a "weasel word" when there's a citation that gave a sampling of the many comments on this matter -- to say that only ten people made comments is a distortion. To remove this material would be to make the article worse, not improve it, and would be a clear violation of Wikipedia policy, but I will not war over it. -- 98.108.211.71 (talk) 06:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I have made one change: "ten" -> "some", because not all of the authors cited in the reference make the claim that the agreement is damaging to net neutrality. Of course at least ten authors have made the claim, but the explicit word "ten" is highly misleading because it implies that those ten, from the reference, make the claim. Please note that "some" is not a "weasel word" per se -- it only is in the absence of any citation or other evidence. But if someone damages the article by changing it back, or removing this cited information altogether, I won't be the one to repair it. -- 98.108.211.71 (talk) 07:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The future of Google
I thought Google was pretty slick, fighting the good fight, but this just adds a huge comma on the subject http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-10961776 -- Meomix, August/16/2010/GMT+9 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.172.2.169 (talk) 16:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Who suggested it?
"It was suggested that Google should change its motto to 'Don't. Be evil.'" by whom? "Citation needed" tag should be inserted. Mal7798 (talk) 15:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I did a Google search of the Internet and found no source to confirm this. In my opinion, current controversies regarding Google increase the importance of this page. Therefore, it's imperative for Wikipedia's credibility that our sources be "tight." In a sense, this becomes a BLP issue, particularly because of Google's size, the number of employees and customers affected, and consequently, the company's notability. While I have little doubt the statement "Don't. Be evil." cropped up somewhere, without a source, the sentence is hearsay. Allreet (talk) 15:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)