Talk:Zinc Inc.

Content dispute
Requesting that the following be removed: “Cotap is a functional spam/data-mining service that specializes in gathering work e-mail addresses via mass marketing social-engineering fake messages that indicate someone in their work e-mail domain has signed up the target and for the target to confirm and install the app.” and updated to the below:

“In September 2014, Cotap added People and Group Directories to the app. The People Directory autopopulates with others with the same corporate email domain, making connecting with coworkers easy. A user’s most active contacts and groups can be pinned to the top of the Directory, making it even faster to connect with those you communicate with most. Cotap integrates into your company directory so you don't have to worry about swapping phone numbers, and to help coworkers find other coworkers, Cotap sends out Join Notification emails to help employees connect.” The current information on the page is from a questionable source, lacking meaningful editorial oversight. Specifically, Wikipedia categorizes it as “self-published source” which includes: “books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), Internet forum postings, and tweets.”

The suggested content comes from the below news sources, which are reliable sources and have reported on Cotap features and functionality. These sources are not based on public opinion, which is often inaccurate, as is the case with the current cited Spiceworks forum posting.

From TechRepublic:

“The app launched in October 2013 with several features that Patterson said make the app simple and intuitive for workplace use. For one, the app doesn't require phones numbers, unlike popular consumer apps like WhatsApp. "It integrates into your company directory so that you don't have to worry about swapping phone numbers," he said, in case someone doesn't have the numbers they need, or doesn't want to give theirs out. The app matches domain names in email addresses, which also means that as people in the corporate world might be more comfortable identifying themselves with a work email address, they can do that. The other benefit, Patterson said, to not using phone numbers, is that phone numbers are specific to devices. With Cotap, the app can be installed across devices, meaning that co-workers don't have to be at their desks or next to a certain device to receive messages.”

http://www.techrepublic.com/article/cotap-offers-simple-secure-mobile-messaging-to-business-team/

From GigaOm Research:

“Cotap has added People and Group Directories, making it easier to connect with people. The People Directory autopopulates with others with the same corporate email domain, making that easy. A user’s most active contacts and groups can be pinned to the top of the directory list making it fast to connect.”

http://research.gigaom.com/2014/09/cotap-v2-0-shows-where-work-chat-is-headed/ Thanks, Paulharrer (talk) 23:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * That material is negative and poorly sourced. There are several IPs who seems to have some kind of axe to grind against this company and is continually reinserting it. Canterbury Tail   talk  18:37, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

- The material is negative in the most basics of definitions of the word 'negative'. Less than 10 minutes of time on Google searching Cotap Spam (https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=cotap%20spam) will yield plenty of results from web sites you may deem worthy of being used as legitimate sources. I myself just had to black list multiple domain names that Cotap is using to send out spam emails trying to convince the recipient that other people in our company are using Cotap's product when infact, we are not using any of Cotap's products and have never had any sort of business relationship with Cotap. The fact that this is not the first time I have had to blacklist domain names in our firewall to stop the misleading emails from Cotap trying to trick our users into thinking someone from our company is trying to communicate with them via Cotap's products is plenty of proof to me that their tactics are lacking in business scruples at best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.218.17.193 (talk) 22:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Other references
More has happened since this article was written:, , ,. ~KvnG 14:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

See more at http://community.spiceworks.com/topic/839204-cotap-spam?page=3#entry-4837688 Len0811 (talk) 13:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Spamming Controversy

 * Please see Reliable Sources. Forums are not a reliable source. Blogs are not a reliable source. Non-neutral sites are not a reliable source. And it's kinda ironic that people are trying to make a case that this company is spamming by spamming. Canterbury Tail   talk  15:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I do not agree that forums are not reliable: forums like SpiceWorks represent a broad, very diverse slice of the system administration community, and when many and varied persons there post that something (like Cotap sending them UCE - Unsolicited Commercial Email) is happening, it's much more reliable a citation than a "press-release"-like article on TheNextWeb, TechCrunch or VentureBeat. Also, I do not agree that the other sites I cited (like TheDailyScam or Discard.Email) are "non-neutral": they are run by uninterested 3rd parties and therefore are perfectly neutral. Durval  talk  12:58, 06 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:RS. Canterbury Tail   talk  13:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I've read it and just re-read it, and I stand by my previous comment. Durval   talk  19:39, 06 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Further explaining my understanding of WP:RS as it applies to the situation at hand, I note that it does not in any way forbid citing forum threads as a source of material, quoting from there: "[...]Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable." (emphasis mine). See that it mentions isolated postings, not threads (and the postings I have cited are in a many pages long thread, with tens of postings all denouncing Cotap as a spammer), and also note the word "largely" (meaning that in some cases, forum postings are acceptable as a reliable source). I argue that this one is such a case. To finish making my point regarding the sources, I also call your attention to the fact that I have included three other sources which are *not* from the aforementioned forum thread, to wit: one from TheDailyScam (which is "canary" site reporting on scams and deceptive practices currently running on the Internet), one from Discard.Email (which is an automated system reporting emails captured by spamtraps), and one from a security professional's blog. I argue that these three (plus the aforementioned forum thread) jointly constitute more than enough evidence to support the section I've added. If you disagree, please state exactly why, so I can go about and fix it. Thanks, Durval   talk  14:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

How does a company posting it's own PR and getting upset about other people "correcting" said PR count as "neutral" then? If that is the case, nothing should ever appear on Wikipedia until verified by some identified and qualified group of gate keepers. Or are there already gatekeepers on here bowing down to some "sources" and throwing their toys out over others? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.121.241.164 (talk) 13:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Regarding WP:RS - in that case, this entire article should be removed and the gatekeeping being done by Canterbury Tail shows that there is bias on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.121.241.164 (talk) 13:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I would like to disclose immediately my relationship with Cotap: none to speak of, but as a sysadmin managing an email domain which has been targeted by their Unsolicited Commercial Emails (aka SPAM); I then searched the Internet and saw many references to their SPAMming, so it was not "just me". Also, I'm a Wikipedia contributor (since 2006) which brought me here to add information about their SPAMming to this article. Now, I would like to ask that Canterbury Tail  immediately and fully discloses his relationship with Cotap, so we (and possibly, higher-level Wikipedia intervention) can fully assess how neutral he is on this subject.  Durval   talk  19:39, 06 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Simple, none. I had no knowledge of this company before I came across multiple IPs adding unsourced and badly sourced information to the article. That section is still incredibly poorly sourced, the forums are not valid sources and most of the other references do not support the point they are being used to support. Canterbury Tail   talk  11:41, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note, your 248 edits over 10 years are not relevant to this conversation (neither are my 30,000+ over 12 years), it's all about Wikipedia policies.  Canterbury Tail   talk  14:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for stating your relation to the matter, as requested. I saw the section you added to the Wikipedia Administrator's incident noticeboard, and added more there. Meanwhile, please refrain from removing the section I added while we are still discussing it. Durval   talk  14:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually the onus is on you to not add it in again per WP:BRD. You added something, it has been reverted (by several users), its up to you to discuss to reach agreement for its reinsertion. As it is it is clearly against WP:RS and therefore can be removed by any editor at any time. Canterbury Tail   talk  14:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * And I have now removed the material yet again. The portions of it which were not properly sourced were unsourced altogether. The editor is currently free to suggest here that this material should be re-added, but the editing history makes it clear that he does not currently have consensus for the material's inclusion. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * In answer to the why the sources are not reliable. What the sources are are some anonymous people on internet forums and blogs saying they got an email. One of the references claiming to support that multiple people are getting an email is simply a copy of an email posted on a site without comment. Someone else mentioning an email who does use the word spam in the header but passes no real comment on the email or contents. None of the email support that there is some widespread controversy, no evidence that these emails are coming from the company in question, and nothing from what people would call a reputable respected site or news source that can support these accusations. Is it true? Maybe. However on Wikipedia we are concerned about reliable sources, not "truth" (see WP:Truth.) By all means come back with reliable reputable sources that support that this is widespread, provides evidence that these are being sent by the company and are not just spam emails from another source, and some industry analysis that shows this is an issue. People posting on their blog or a forum is not reliable for this sort of thing. An email that someone receives is not proof that a company is running some kind of spamming platform (as a system admin you well know that spam emails asking you to click on something are generally not from who they purport to be from.) Using those kind of sources provided you have I could say that Apple, World of Warcraft, INSERT RANDOM BANK OR INTERNET SERVICE HERE are sending me out spam emails which isn't the case. Canterbury Tail   talk  14:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Canterbury Tail, you don't seem to even know what Spam is. Read the wonderful article on....Wikipedia of all place: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spamming As for truth vs reliable sources. This is one of the things that makes Wikipedia questionable. There are gatekeepers who decide what is reliable, Canterbury appears to be one of them. It is not a matter of what is verifiable, but who else is saying it. A bit like saying Fox News must be truthful because it is a well established media outlet and watched by many who swear by it. Well that proves nothing. Cotap are sending out emails which are classed as spam by definition. There mechanism of expanding their customer base is built on that very act of sending out spam. It is not up for discussion any more than looking at a blue sky and calling it blue! Now I know why when it comes to articles about companies and certain politically sensitive issue, I trust wikipedia about as much as Fox news!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.121.241.164 (talk) 15:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, Canterbury, are you actually admitting Wikipedia is about sites that appear to offer reliability and have no interest in actual truth. Given that you said "Is it true? Maybe. However on Wikipedia we are concerned about reliable sources, not "truth"". So providing a site is very popular and lots of people follow it, again say Fox News or even The Onion (should there be anyone who "believes" satire), then that would be ok to source, but not real people in a real serious forum discussing real issues???? I'm glad I never responded to Wikipedia funding requests, Wikipedia should be taken with a huge grain of salt unless it is a highly academic article written and edited by well established academics. Which means there should be no other articles on this site other than those factual academic ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.121.241.164 (talk) 15:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No, our reliable sources are not tied to the popularity of a site. If you wish to understand our guidelines on reliable sources, you can read them. However, the material being used as sources here, largely anonymous/pseudonymous unedited claims of individuals, fall far from those standards (if you wish to see those standards changed, there are other parts of Wikipedia where you can enter into that discussion). --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

But now the article is semi protected, all references to it being a disputed article removed from the article itself (leaving the soft promotional material in place) and no genuine concerns have been taken into account. Gatekeepers indeed. Wikipedia = Joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.121.241.164 (talk) 17:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:ANI complaint
An administrator has raised some concerns about this article at WP:ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 14:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Lots of people have raised complaints about this article. It is a marketing stub for a gang of spammers who are irritating many a sysadmin. Time for the article to be removed rather than locked for modification by Wikipedia's corporate lacky gate keepers. Just delete it. Simple! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.121.241.164 (talk) 14:08, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * If the editors who are complaining that this article is being maintained and kept to Wikpedia standards would instead take that time trying to get one of the major tech business websites to cover their issues, they would have a good chance of getting their concerns seen by a far larger audience and of generating coverage that could actually be used to reflect their concerns in this article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:34, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Citation is difficult in my case, as the security warnings I've made are via email, and/or internal to the company. I have no dog in the fight other than protecting a user base and stopping leakage.  The tracking work is done via DNS and other dynamic tools, and also not able to be statically linked, since Cotap is changing mail sending domains and providers.  Current email (two received today) uses a reply to in the domain 'cotapmail.com', but is send from an SMTP relay with hostname in the 'cotap-mail.com' domain.  This has SPF values to accept mail from any SMTP relays in the following domains: spf.mailjet.com, mailgun.org, sparkpostmail.com, spf.mandrillapp.com, cust-spf.exacttarget.com, with all others set to soft-fail.  From a technical standpoint, I have no doubt the marketing messages that are hitting my mailbox are genuinely sent by Cotap in an effort to trick users into believing there is an official company service/directory.  According to Wikipedia guidelines, I would post the details, including headers, research, links to lookup tools, etc. to validate the research.  Then, I would let others use that page as a reference.  If I publish my own reference, it's easily reverted/edited out due to a conflict of interest.  But, I can't request it be used by another editor, or else it's interpreted as meat-puppeting.


 * The reverts, while true to wikipedia guidelines, are also dismissive with the claim that internet posts are anonymous and likely people with an axe to grind. There are a couple of organizations that have posted a warning publicly to their users, such as Univ. of Arizona and Purdue University .  There are so many scams, that posting warnings for every single one would generate a volume of site content likely to be categorized as 'Chicken Little'...and might outweigh the normal web site content.


 * As for asking for help from tech web sites...well, they're paid for advertising. And even the big guys like LinkedIn use address-stealing tactics to spam everyone inside of a company/organization.  Sadly, it's become an acceptable business practice, as long as you can claim there was a shrinkwrap agreement or blame it on some bad list or marketing vendor...and put the onus on the spam victim to 'unsubscribe'.


 * Factually, there is little in the stub of an article but PR. Academically, Wikipedia articles don't cover the dirty business practices unless they make headlines, jail, etc.  Anecdotally, I know that users will take a cursory Google search, web site load, or Wikipedia article as validation that a company is aboveboard.  I can understand why security folks would want to make it clear that this company is attempting to deceive people into thinking they are providing services for the company.  If the Wikipedia PR page makes it look like the company is legit...it increases the chances one of my users will become a victim.Alegh (talk) 21:16, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "According to Wikipedia guidelines, I would post the details, including headers, research, links to lookup tools, etc. to validate the research. Then, I would let others use that page as a reference." But even other people using it would be problematic, because you're not an established reliable source. The simple truth is that Wikipedia is not intended to be a method to air complaints - valid or not - but an accumulation of what is said in reliable sources. I understand your desire to draw attention to a situation that you feel is a concern, but Wikipedia is not the tool to do so; with the vast number of resources on the internet, I suspect there is one to be found. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:29, 10 September 2015 (UTC)