Talk:Don't Be Evil

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Business and Economics Portal This article is within the scope of Business and Economics WikiProject.
B	rated as b-Class on the assessment scale
Mid	rated as mid-importance on the assessment scale

I think the article http://www.ftrain.com/GoogleIP.html linked to as "How the Don't Be Evil philosophy enhanced Google's brand image" is uninteresting and poorly written, so I will take the link out. Take it back if you disagree.

Um, anyone who read that article would see it is a big joke. What was it doing linked there in the first place? --FrogMonster

Does anyone else disagree that there should be any controversy regarding what google did in china? I don't consider it evil, because google had to choose between not including a few specific pages in their search results or having the chinese government firewalls block all users in china from using google at all... -Raggedtoad

[edit] "Controversy" section

Much of the "Controversy" section seems to lack NPOV when discussing the controversies and needs citations. --mtz206 04:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

"...I do agree with certainly Microsoft and others in the industry on one key point....we are always happy to give recognition to those researchers who find fault and say thank you, we have fixed it, and we tell our customers.

There are a group of researchers for whom thank you and potentially hiring them for bettering your software is not enough. They want your scalp, and one of the ways they get that is by releasing exploit code at forums such as Black Hat and other hacker conventions."

Also see page 37 (page 49 of 80 in my PDF viewer), number 13 at http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/mime/open.pdf?Item=965 for specific mention of what goes on in the newsgroups you can find on Google.

As I said in a previous edit summary, I won't be doing business with Google because of them facilitating this stuff.

-Barry- 15:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've added mention of "morally questionable content in Google Groups" to this section. That should suffice, although I still feel each of these "controversies" needs a citation indicating they are more than just one person's opinion. --mtz206 16:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll keep it in your words. An anti-hacker website might be a good thing to cite if you want a citation, if it contains relevant comments. I didn't look for the very best reference for linking from the article. Footnotes are kind of discouraged by Wikipedia because some other publications have stopped using them, but a references section should be OK if you're inclined to add one. -Barry- 23:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

That's not about Google being evil, it's about normal people using Google for evil stuff. Why blame Google for having users trading passwords on their groups?

There has been a somewhat spammy section which some conspiracy theorists claim Google is tied to the CIA but neither cites evidence or makes sense. I've edited to make it more NPOV although removal would seem more appropriate 66.240.48.106 19:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External link to Milton Friedman

This isn't really about Google or "Don't be Evil" specifically but is about CSR ingeneral so I'm gonna cut it her and put it at Corporate social responsibilityA Geek Tragedy 21:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Morally questionable"

This seems to be a fairly odd claim that may be borderline OR / personal opinion, and, given the way the Usenet works (and how broad is the meaning of "hacking instructions"), may be entirely out of place. Are there any sane sources (say, a newspaper article) that discuss this controversy? --lcamtuf 20:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)