Talk:Fluff Busting Purity

Keeping it neutral
your recent edits to this article have been reverted by both me and since they don't seem to be in line with Wikipedia's content policies. Namely, [the existence of a fan page] shows that they do not really mean it when they say FB Purity is unsafe, as if it was they would not allow it to have a Fan Page on Facebook is synthesis of two different primary sources. We also don't know whether Facebook's policies would prohibit a fan page for an app they didn't like (or an app they felt was in violation of their terms); perhaps their policy on fan pages is different from their policies on third-party applications or Facebook Pages operated by the vendor. Without a source, we have no way of knowing.

You said that the "spammy and abusive" note is a generic error message […] to any site that they have deemed to have violated any of their terms and conditions, citing the NetworkWorld article, but that article doesn't talk about whether the error message is generic or not.

Citing web security scans, another primary source, also isn't great. All it tells you is that one or more scanners failed to find anything. Things that would be suitable instead as a source to contradict Facebook would be something like an independent security audit, or to discuss that the accuracy of Facebook's claims are disputed by.

Fundamentally, I understand you're trying to show readers that FBP is safe. I respect that. However, Wikipedia isn't the place to prove you're right. Instead, especially about controversial topics, we need to report facts that are verifiable (and don't require interpretation) and discussed in reliable sources. L Faraone  03:52, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

-- -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jepst (talk • contribs) 05:39, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Its not just the existence of the Fan page, Facebook also said that they were going to ban the author of the program, and yet they did not. Is that not proof enough that they are lying? If someone on facebook was authoring an unsafe program, don't you think Facebook would terminate that person's account? Why is a source even necessary, it is as clear as the sky is blue, I do not understand why you are siding with Facebook on this, where is Facebook's proof or source to the claim that FB Purity is unsafe, why do they not have to verify their claims? This article appears to be a stitch up most likely orchestrated by Facebook in order to besmirch the good name of a software program in use by over 240,000 users world wide, that has been reviewed and highly recommended in places such as The Washington Post, The New York Times, Lifehacker, CNET, CIO.com, WSAZ TV News, and many more...

>>Citing web security scans, another primary source, also isn't great.

VirusTotal is not an ordinary security scan, it is a third party aggregation service, so is not a primary source at all. It is not just the result of "one or more scanner" as you put it, it is an aggregation of the results of 67, yes 67 security scanners, that is virtually the whole security industry saying that FB Purity is safe, what more proof do you need?!?! And as for requiring an independent security audit, how would that be any better than 67 Respected Internet Security companies stating that FB Purity is safe? How could a single report from a single firm be better than such a comprehensive proof? The mind boggles... Also you are claiming that Wikipedia is not the place for primary research, surely calling in an independednt security audit is exactly that primary research! VirusTotal is about as independent a Security audit as you can get, it does not do any scanning of its own, it just reports back on what all the security companies are saying.

I am not trying to prove I am right, I am trying to write an accurate article that is not full of lies, mistruths and hearsay, which is what the current article is.

>>You said that the "spammy and abusive" note is a generic error message […] to any site that they have deemed to have >> violated any of their terms and conditions, citing the NetworkWorld article, but that article doesn't talk about whether the error >>message is generic or not.

For a start if you read the actual article that quote is taken from it does not say "Spammy and Abusive" it actually says "Spammy or Abusive" which is clear enough in itself that it is a generic error message, as if it was specific it would say one or the other, therefore it clearly *is* a generic error message.

>>Instead, especially about controversial topics, we need to report facts that are verifiable and don't require >> interpretation and discussed in reliable sources. '

So you don't think The Washington Post, The New York Times, Lifehacker, CNET, CIO.com, WSAZ TV News are reliable sources, then if not, what do you consider reliable sources?

I am reverting the story back, as it seems Facebook are behind the whitewashing going on here.
 * So, those are all reliable sources. Can you point to articles from them we're not using?
 * Facebook isn't behind any kind of "whitewashing" unless I got a new job and nobody told me anything about it; this is largely about originality and synthesis. So, on VirusTotal; yes, it says it's clean. But it's not some writer somewhere saying "it's clean" based on the results, it's an automated report you've turned into prose. Our job is not to report an argument and then go and hunt down evidence for counters to that argument and include those too. It's to say "X says A, Y says B", where X and Y are actual people. VirusTotal - an automated system - is not that.
 * My other concern is around the language you're using; "clearly" for example, and other charged or narrative words, are great for essays but not great for encyclopedias, and they appear in a context that is unambiguously original research; "the sources say X but there's a version update so the sources are wrong" is pretty much the canonical form of OR.
 * At this point I'm going to point you to the three-revert rule; basically, going back and forth over an article's content alongside discussing it is not acceptable, and you need to stop doing it. I'd much rather we could talk about things and incorporate the (prose) sources we both have, than end up with you blocked and demoralised and the article of worse quality as a result. It's clear you have a lot of knowledge and enthusiasm about this and I'd like to be able to include that in writing the article. Ironholds (talk) 02:55, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Proper information about the matter subject
In this article there isn't any mention to what the addon actually does.

All the content of the article is about its troubles with facebook. Such content should be kept to a minimum and in its own section.

Aisteco (talk) 12:35, 23 May 2016 (UTC)