Talk:Casale Media
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Business and Economics WikiProject. | |
| Stub | rated as stub-Class on the assessment scale | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. | |
This, to me, reads like a spyware company trying to justify their actions. --ailahusky, 22/12/06
On Jan 8, 2007, the above text was deleted (the talk page was made blank) by a user from 192.139.80.11. That IP address resolves to ex1.comspec.com. The whois information for comspec.com has the same physical address as the whois information for casalemedia.com. Coincidence? Seems unlikely. I agree with ailahusky that this page sounds like something written by Casale Media to defend themselves, and the fact that someone apparently from the company wiped out a critical post from the talk page reinforces that. Sharding 00:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
So... is it possible to restore the talk page from the article's history? Or to block said IP address from access to this article or wikipedia in general? I have the impression (being a newer and infrequent contributor) that the histories of wiki articles themselves are archived, which is why I ask. baccaruda66 07:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC).
I agree with ailahusky. The article is too blatantly biased. I'm surprised it hasn't been modified to be honest. Enigmatikmike 18:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
This is definately a spyware (the tracking cookie), but not a very harmful piece of spyware. --Moronally 20:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)A.J.
Contents |
[edit] NPOV
Clearly an unbiased article would both describe this company's services and the annoyances it has been reported to cause, since the entire article keeps switching back and forth between promoting and deriding the company. Can we try to get a balance, rather than fighting over two extremes? Bgwwlm 02:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Delete?
Ok, so far we know a couple of things... this stub has been created by the company itself. The company employees have been caught deleting TALK page entries. I think everyone agrees that the article has no real value, has a biased POV and it's actually a commercial. This article would better be removed, deleted, erased from Wikipedia. Working on its NPOV would serve noone. Are we payed by that company to write Wiki-acceptable commercials? So I can write "Trgfg.com is the best site on the web.", name it "Trgfg.com" and you would have to fix my wiki entry with establishing NPOV? What would that be? "JTrdi CLAIMS his site is the best"? I don't think so.--JTrdi 03:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, I've just noticed the article has already been deleted once by a mod, a month before it was recreated. Wikipedia is not a place for commercials. --JTrdi 03:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] References
The link to the company contact page seems inappropriate as a reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Masiano (talk • contribs) 19:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Actually this page is quite valuable
If a person or company becomes famous for causing harm to the general public, then it belongs on Wikipedia. The Enron page is a good example of how this should be done.
Unfortunately the Casale article does not list the people involved with the company... and their company website is suspiciously anonymous.
Casale media was also responsible for the pop-ups that mimicked Microsoft graphics and read "Warning, you may have critical errors on your PC". This was one of the first phishing attacks combining graphic mimicry and fear tactics and was ultimately used to trick people into compromising their privacy.
I was targeted by another firm in Toronto with such persistence that I became suspicious of them. This happened over the telephone and through the mail. I have since assembled quite a large file on these so called "market research" companies.
Wikipedia is valuable because the Canadian government is notoriously oblivious to white collar crime when not directly involved in it. (See Gomery Commission) So "Common knowledge" is the only justice left. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.85.105 (talk) 17:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
