Difference between revisions of "Talk:IceCat/Web of Trust - WOT"

From Free Software Directory
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 9: Line 9:
Thus it cannot be in the directory, but this entry should still be open so that it can be used has a warning.
Thus it cannot be in the directory, but this entry should still be open so that it can be used has a warning.
After the revelations the Mozilla foundation deleted it's entry about wot.
After the revelations the Mozilla foundation deleted it's entry (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/wot-safe-browsing-tool/) about WOT.

Revision as of 14:22, 4 November 2016



I've requested if this add-on should be banned on the behalf of the community via the mailing list directory-discuss@gnu.org.


WOT was found guilty to spy and sell the data of it's users. Thus it cannot be in the directory, but this entry should still be open so that it can be used has a warning.

After the revelations the Mozilla foundation deleted it's entry (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/wot-safe-browsing-tool/) about WOT.




Backup article


From http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2707869/posts

Web of Trust WOT Scam - possibly worst Internet scam
Ripoffreport.com ^

Posted on 2011-04-20 18:53:49 by DBCJR
This is supposedly a safe browser add-on that will help protect against dangerous or fraudulent websites. Users are supposed to rate sites good or bad. But WOT actively rewards users who specialize in giving negative reports. Some of their top-rated users have done tens of thousands of negative reports, and it is obvious they are not really rating sites accurately. WOT's own statistics show that the overwhelming majority of ratings are negative. The developers of WOT are in the business of selling security seals for websites, so they have a vested interest in making website owners afraid of negative ratings. It is typical for harmless websites to have negative ratings, which cause scary warning messages to pop up in the browser of anyone who has installed with WOT plugin. If the website owners aren't using WOT, they may never even know they have been targeted. At the same time, there are a number of dangerous or fraudulent sites which have no ratings or good ratings from WOT. Overall, the ratings are worthless to consumers and possibly very harmful to people running reputable online businesses. Then, when you realize that this plug-in is worse than useless and uninstall it, it is never really completely uninstalled, but leaves hidden traces behind, in the same way that spyware does. Stay away from this terrible product.

From https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/wot-safe-browsing-tool/reviews/747946/
Not trustworthy! Rated 1 out of 5 stars

by Marcus Geier on September 19, 2015 · permalink · translate

I did a series of informal tests recently on several controversial subject areas (I'm a research professor) and quickly concluded that WOT is heavily biased toward certain powerful special interest groups. ANY information that contradicts them is downgraded despite the almost complete lack of negative reviews and a plethora of positive reviews, including numerous sites that I I know to be reliable. Evidence clearly proves that WOT is heavily biased and not to be trusted.

Response to WOT Services poster: The number of mechanisms in place to defend manipulations is irrelevant when the biases and manipulations are performed with the full knowledge and blessing of WOT, as it necessarily must be. WOT's documented sell-out and perversion of trust is not restricted to isolated exceptions as you are attempting to suggest, but is a chronic characteristic of WOT. I do not own any of the sites in question - I am 100% unbiased with no interest other than truth and exposure of corruption. The fact that WOT may be trusted by millions is an absurd statement that does nothing to make your case. Millions also trust pharmaceutical companies, doctors, fast-food restaurants and politicians to their great detriment.

Numerous examples abound regarding various alternative health therapy websites. (My tests were performed 2-3 years ago). For example, various sites pertaining to Jim Humble and MMS. Now, MMS is a thoroughly proven safe and wonderfully effective cure for many serious diseases and the websites in question are completely free of malware, disinformation or potential harm of any sort. The reviews were almost universally positive yet WOT gave them a dangerous rating. Why? The only possible reason can be manipulation by extremely powerful and well-funded special interest groups who stand to lose much as MMS becomes ever more popular. It is extremely well documented that the pharmaceutical industry employs a considerable number of expert shills whose sole purpose is to discredit alternative cures all over the Internet. Pharmaceutical companies also spend far more money on lobbying than on research as well. WOT is certainly not immune to payoffs, just like the recent snopes.com scandal. Other than MMS, there are countless additional examples, but the onus is on WOT to prove their honesty.

    Report this review

Trusted by millions

by WOT Services (Developer) on September 25, 2015 · permalink · translate

Hi Marcus.
WOT has many mechanisms in place to defend against such manipulation and biases. If you have an example to back your "informal tests" it would help us look into it and isolate any exception.
If you own such a site you can contact our support as a site owner.

WOT is trusted by a community of millions who rate, review and share their thoughts about sites.7

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.3 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the page “GNU Free Documentation License”.

The copyright and license notices on this page only apply to the text on this page. Any software or copyright-licenses or other similar notices described in this text has its own copyright notice and license, which can usually be found in the distribution or license text itself.