I find it funny that this article passed moderation then was edited a million times, which means even MORE moderators saw the article but didn’t do anything. The article’s called “Install ASK Toolbar on Internet Explorer” or something and it’s HERE: http://www.wikihow.com/Get-the-Ask.Com-Tool-Bar-for-Internet-Explorer
. First of all, the instructions are amazing. It’s go to your already-Delta-Search-infected Internet Explorer, visit Ask search, search for Ask toolbar, and click the “very first link” (exactly what the article says) which was obviously intentionally meant to mislead users into clicking the ads at the top of the page (the emphasized link in the pic that leads to a shady pconverter website). Then there are screenshots of potentially unwanted programs installing various junk like “Video Converter Pro” which actually bundles ASK toolbar WITH its installer. Then the last step which confirms that ASK Toolbar was installed shows you that if ASK hijacked your homepage, it’s installed. Remove this, please.
Let me preface my response with an argument to your portrayal of wikiHow editors: those who review edits to articles are not moderators, nor are they expected to be experts on everything. If they saw nothing inherently wrong with an edit, it gets approved. On to the point of your post, yes, the toolbar is full of distasteful addons. Is the article intended to mislead you? Definitely not. The toolbar is one of Conduit’s, who historically is not the best of companies. The toolbar has set off multiple anti-virus programs for adware and PUPs.
Don’t tell me about the Ask toolbar. (My browser was once hijacked by it.) However, there is really no NFD criteria that applies to this article, so it cannot be deleted.
Really? None for malware? Would I be able to publish articles on how to install Cryptolocker? I’m sure there are some people out there that don’t know about Cryptolocker or ASK Toolbar and will install it if they think it sounds cool.
What do you mean, patrollers are not moderators? Don’t they have the authority to deny/revert changes or articles? I’m not trying to say that the WikiHow patrollers are horrible at their job. I’m asking how this article was scanned over a million times by a conscious person but no-one thought that someone was wrong with it. Also, this article is basically advertising and is deceiving. The article calls ASK an impressive search engine and the toolbar handy, which is clearly meant to trick inexperienced users into downloading it. ASK or whoever programmed the toolbar will then receive revenue from ads in the search engine when the toolbar is downloaded and installed then changes the homepage and search engine of the affected browsers. Then users who download the ASK Toolbar using the provided instructions in the article will get malware from the bundled installer shown in the picture, get malware from malicious ads from the ASK search engine when they’re using it, and they’ll be mad when they find out that their browser has been taken over by this piece of junk.
At least one of those editors had to know at least a little about ASK, don’t you reckon?
Patrollers are simply patrollers. They are granted the abilities to edit the site, patrol edits, revert and rollback edits that they deem unfit for the site, and miscellaneous other abilities that are irrelevant to the discussion. They mainly review edits for vandalism. If the edit being patrolled does not match the criteria of vandalism or other such examples of unfit edits, it has a good chance of staying. There is a very small chance that the patroller has in-depth knowledge on any of the topics that they patrol edits to. I recommend that you NFD the article in question by adding {{nfd|acc}} at the top of the article, and then providing reasons why you added the template on the discussion page. This information will be reviewed and researched by boosters and administrators who decide the fate of the article when it shows up in the NFD application.
In my opinion, there are thousands of articles that have the potential to be harmful. Smoke a Cigarette, Use a Chainsaw, Fly an Airplane… or notice the number of forum posts wanting pages taken down…Take Erotic Photos of Yourself, for example. The purpose of wikiHow is to provide instructional content, hopefully accurately and concisely, (with the obvious exception of WRM)… So, if people come to wikiHow to learn how to install a tool bar, they are entitled to information telling them how to do it. If it is malware, put warnings on the page. Don’t send them searching somewhere else, that simply defeats the purpose of trying to create a comprehensive how to manual.
Doing something like using a chainsaw is indirectly harmful, if you get what I mean. Installing ASK guarantees you a bad result. Unless you like toolbars taking over your search engine and homepage…
I just think the article is unnecessary.
system
12
As one of those “editors”, my personal answer is no. I don’t do toolbars to begin with, with the exception of wikiHow’s, and it’s awkward to learn that because I came by and adding related wikiHows on the bottom means I must know “something” about the topic? Confused…
I would think so too in this case. It might also be trying to advertise the toolbar too, so I have added the “adv” reason to your NFD tag, if that’s okay with you.
The nfd adv nomination for deletion is generally for articles with a generic title used to promote a specific product. The commercial products guidelines suggests titles contain the name of a unique product with instructions for using, buying, installing, or other purposes the product is related to. As the Ask Toolbar is unique, and the instructions are unique to the toolbar, it wouldn’t automatically qualify for deletion as an advertisement under those guidelines. I would be in favor of deleting an article about using a commercial product if it were not unique, like “Use Clorox Bleach”, when Use Bleach would essentially be the same content without the product name. As far as the danger of the content, using a chainsaw or smoking a cigarette can kill a person, using a questionable toolbar would have less significant impact on a person, so I don’t follow the logic. The question remains, if a person WANTS to install the toolbar, should they go somewhere else? It seems obvious to me the reader’s interests are better served by correcting any accuracy issues on the page, and adding accurate and informative warnings of the consequences to installing the toolbar instead. How long do we need to leave the door open for attacks on articles simply because they might be offensive or subject a person to risk? People need to own their own responsibility for the consequences of their action, and wikiHow needs to focus on its mission.
To quote from the article:_“It’s free and very nice to have around.”_This is the last sentence of the introduction, and the deletion policy says that the “adv” reason can be used for things like “Send your email address here to get a free Runescape account” and “Buy Viagra for cheap”, which is why the “adv” reason is in the NFD, if it helps.
“wikiHow needs to focus on its mission”. So you’re saying that wikiHow’s mission is to teach people to download malware? If you search “ASK Toolbar” on Google, all you get are removal guides or rants. Do you want this guide on WikiHow about how to INSTALL Ask Toolbar to show up in the midst of them so people will wonder, “Who the HECK would publish that?”
I’m sorry, but you’re quoting an irrelevant part of the article to support an irrelevant point. Saying the toolbar is free and handy does not advertise it.
If the person searches ‘‘How to Install the Ask Toolbar on Internet Explorer’’, then yes, the article is what I would expect to pop up. What else would you want to pop up? The rants and removal guides may be the second thing they read, to get rid of the tool bar, but the point of having this website isn’t changed, if people want an article to learn how to download a problem toolbar, it is here. There are no legitimate reasons for deletion that have been brought up thus far.
What if the person who was reading the article didn’t know that Ask was malware, though? Maybe they were simply browsing through WikiHow and saw this article about a rad new toolbar, and decided to install it without proper insight of it.
It’s like writing an article about installing NavaShield. The title may be “How to install Navashield” but that doesn’t mean that the article is fine to keep up, especially considering the number of visitors who are inexperienced in the field of malware, since nobody is “expected to be experts on everything.”
