User talk:WinSerfer

Hello. I've reverted the removal of the less positive history associated to MacKeeper. If you review the talk page you will see that this content was arrived to after much consultation. You are free to re-start that conversation on the talk page but you are likely to find that the software's history under previous ownership is still both material and relevant. Labattblueboy (talk) 00:20, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MacKeeper has undergone significant improvements and now boasts official Apple certificates and a top ranking from AV-TEST (https://www.av-test.org/en/antivirus/home-macos/manufacturer/mackeeper/). Additionally, they have achieved ISO 27001 certification (https://mackeeper.com/).

However, the information presented on their website seems to focus heavily on their experiences from 2015. This lack of a clear company vision for the future can create a negative impression and overshadow their positive developments in the past five years.

While including references to past criticisms is important for transparency, relying solely on them paints an incomplete picture and discourages the company from striving for improvement. WinSerfer (talk) 10:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issue with adding to a more contemporary understanding of the product but it's also necessary not to fall victim to WP:RECENTISM. For better or worse, the product remains notable for its association to past litigation and marketing techniques and removing that isn't appropriate.--Labattblueboy (talk) 19:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the well-reasoned answer. I will not suggest removing the information about the legal history or marketing methods. Instead, I will focus on providing a more comprehensive description that includes the latest updates about the company. WinSerfer (talk) 22:35, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Your edits have a promotional tone, which is not appropriate for Wikipedia. I'm talking about stuff like significantly differed [...] revamped [...] drastic changes [...] underscored the software’s commitment [...] demonstrated MacKeeper’s adherence [...] continuing the company's efforts to enhance the software’s capabilities, improve user trust, and address the evolving needs, as well as filler like designed to solidify its position, underscored the critical importance of robust [...] prompted immediate corrective actions and led to broader institutional efforts (not a comprehensive list). That writing also bears the hallmark of ChatGPT writing, which is also not appropriate, especially in article space, and I notice the same here, especially your last sentence ("While including [...] is important for transparency, relying solely [...]). And Wikipedia does not care whether companies feel like "striving for improvement" and does not adapt its articles to foster such feelings.

Would you mind sharing whether you have any affiliation at all with MacKeeper or Clario Tech?

Thank you - DFlhb (talk) 00:29, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your remarks. I have published an updated version of the history block where I have tried to address all the issues.

Yes, I am affiliated with MacKeeper and Clario. I started updating this page because much of the information on it is no longer relevant, and there have been many updates to the product that should be accurately reflected on this page. WinSerfer (talk) 12:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for disclosing that. I recommend reading our policy on editing with a conflict-of-interest, which comes with constraints, since advertising is not permitted on Wikipedia. You should avoid editing the article directly, and should especially avoid doing so if you've been reverted. Your edits still have a promotional tone and still overwhelmingly use primary sources. I suggest familiarising yourself with our core content policies, following the instructions for disclosing a COI, finding reliable, secondary sources (not primary sources or sponsored content) for any claim you want to add, and making then an edit request on the article talk page (following the instructions on our COI instructions page), instead of editing the page directly. Without reliable, secondary sources, this content doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Thank you - DFlhb (talk) 13:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DFlhb Thank you for your detailed comment. Could I ask for some more specific instructions for article correction? I’m new here, and some things might not be clear to me.

I have completely rewritten the History section and removed all phrases marked as “promotional” or emotionally colored. Could you please specify exactly which phrases still sound promotional?

Also, could I ask for some clarification concerning sources? The list of sources I provided includes both primary sources (like MacKeeper product pages) and secondary ones (press releases about MacKeeper and sources confirming our certifications). It’s logical to rely on both types of sources for the company’s history description, as it is impossible to find reliable secondary sources for some information, such as product updates. Could you please specify which sources should be changed or removed from the updated version?

I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Best regards WinSerfer (talk) 02:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All press releases are primary sources (and are unacceptable on Wikipedia). MacKeeper's site is also a primary source. Websites like AppEsteem would also be primary. As for the puffery language, that's almost all the additions, not just a few instances. "became possible thanks to", " Mac-oriented" (meaningless), " accounts for user complaints and provides qualitative customer support" (meaningless, unsourced), "under its hood" (coloured), "fruitful year", " data security challenge" (euphemism, coloured), "was somehow disclosed", " demanded a quick reaction", I'll stop there, but none of these are encyclopedically appropriate. DFlhb (talk) 10:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]