User:Toddkatz

In 2016 and again this year I submitted a Wikipedia article entry for a password manager called Clipperz. I have used Clipperz often since 2007, I believe. I do not and have never had any relationship with the company. I do not know the authors. I do not and have never had a financial dealings with the company although, as it is freeware, I have donated about $150 over 15 years. I am not an investor or owner in whole or in part of that company. I have no fiduciary interest in any company or enterprise of any kind.

I do have a longstanding interest in freeware and cryptography in regard to password security.

Why would I re-submit an article that was rejected in 2016?


 * When the article was rejected in 2016 I was invited by the Wikipedia algorithms to resubmit if the new submission addressed the rejection criteria. Because of the additional references and more proper of annotation of statements of fact in the new article, I believe that the new submission sufficiently addresses the 2016 rejection issues and should be accepted pending any necessary revisions.
 * Wikipedia continues to feature more than a 30 password managers many of which are defunct, discontinued, etc. See: list of password managers.
 * It is a competitive disadvantage for products of equal prominence to those on Wikipedia to not be allowed to have a well-written, well-researched article on that particular product.
 * Wikipedia currently skews unnecessarily towards rewarding wealth and prominence with more wealth and more prominence. This makes sense for historical topics and physical facts (like the Great Lakes as compared with some pond somewhere) or even personal notoriety. While there can be no doubt that this is the way of the world, it is particularly disadvantageous to newer commercial enterprises as well as freeware offerings by hobbyists and academics.
 * Artificial intelligence programs are going to feature software programs whether or not they are on Wikipedia. For example, Perplexity now outputs useful and accurate information on Clipperz. Whether this makes Clipperz notable or not, Wikipedia would be wise to recognize that the distinction between notable and not notable fads away in a world of instant and total recall.