Talk:Accountability software

Second paragraph: 'accountability software'

This article is about 'accountability software', but the second paragraph (the result of recent edits) has sentences that are only indirectly related to 'accountability software'. The refs do not mention 'accountability software', so seems they are only indirectly related. I have moved most of those refs to pornography addiction, which is where I think it belongs. I propose moving the second paragraph to pornography addiction.

Can I have some comments on this proposal please.

Thanks. peterl (talk) 10:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

A few comments:

• The 2012 review: Behun, Richard Joseph; Sweeney, Valerie; Delmonico, David L.; Griffin, Elizabeth J. (2012). "Filtering and Monitoring Internet Content: A Primer for Helping Professionals". Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity. 19 (1–2): 140–155. doi:10.1080/10720162.2012.666425. ISSN 1072-0162.</ref>

Says "These tools are especially popular with religious groups and families" (you can see a cottage industry company violating copyright law by hosting an illegal copy here [1])

• A submission by the company Covenant Eyes to a Harvard review states that the company was formed by a $700,000 investment, makes $4 million a year, and has ~56,000 paying subscribers (submission). The submission boasts that the company has 44% growth each year. The submission states that "Covenant Eyes is also co-branded by organizations, the largest of which is the Eye Promise Program of Promise Keepers" - note that Promise Keepers is a "Biblical Manhood" organization that promotes Biblical patriarchy. The submission states that their clients include churches and ministries, but 96% of the target market is families.

Note that a business that makes 4 million a year and commissions no independent, peer reviewed research on the efficacy of their product.

• The best-selling Christian franchise "every man's battle" etc - also sells a book for evangelical women who catch their husbands masturbating (https://books.google.com.au/books?id=cs38su7H8T8C) that recommends accountability software. Herzog's analysis of the anti-masturbation book francise accurately describes the growth in sales. Anti-masturbation books would not be on the Christian retailing top-100 bestseller lists if there weren't other studies outlining a deep concern among Christians at high rates of porn use.

-- Callinus (talk) 16:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Neutral point of view?

Surely, anyone who reads this article could be forgiven for coming away with the impression that the internet-accountability industry markets a useless product but stays in business by playing off the neuroses of sexually repressed Republicans...is there no legitimate positive information that could be put forth to balance the generally negative slant (especially of paragraph three)? 2603:6081:8041:5800:CD53:293D:2460:8116 (talk) 04:34, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Edits in September 2022

@Keithgreenfan, I've reverted your recent changes to this article. It appears to me that you removed descriptions of this software and its use that were based on a recent article in Wired, a reliable source, in an attempt to cast this type of software in as good a light as possible. This violates WP:NPOV, according to which we describe our topics as they are described in reliable sources, and WP:V, according to which articles must be based on reliable sources with editorial oversight (and not self-published content such as blogs, etc.). Please do not repeat such edits. Sandstein 07:07, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Sandstein! So let me clarify the purpose of my edits (which was actually a reversion to what the article said for many years, plus some of the content you had added). The Wikipedia article now reads as if the misuse and abuse of accountability software by one single church is the primary purpose of the entire industry of accountability software. I've personally been a user of this type of software since the late 90s and have been a part of the entire 'culture' of users. Never once have I seen it used in the way described by the article. I think it's fair to reference the article under a section describing *abuse* of accountability software, but to use an abusive example as the primary description of it's purpose is pure misinformation. It would be the same as taking an article about churches abusing their authority in general and rewriting Wikipedia's article to say "Churches' main purpose is to control it's members and make them do immoral things". At any rate, let's have a discussion about making this article accurate because as it stands right now, it is misinformation. Thanks! Keithgreenfan (talk) 12:55, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

@SandStein, going to try the WP:BRD approach :). I get your point about self-published blogs. Going to make a few edits to make the article accurate within the boundaries you discussed. The goal is not to cast the software "in as good a light as possible", it is to portray it accurately. Right now it is not being portrayed accurately. In all honestly, the way it is worded now, it appears to be trying to cast the software in as negative a light as possible! Hopefully we can find a happy medium that is precise and accurate.

My new edits take your description of accountability software and moves it to a section I added about abuse of accountability software. That more accurately depicts it as an aberration and not the norm. I included the quote from one church member calling the software 'shameware'. This should not be a primary descriptor of the software just because one individual said it, but it's fair to note it was said in the article.

Hopefully you'll view this as a little more even-handed! Keithgreenfan (talk) 20:00, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

@Sandstein, here’s an example of an article describing the actual purpose of accountability software that we can use.

https://www.freep.com/story/money/business/top-workplaces/2021/11/14/covenant-eyes-2021-michigan-top-workplaces/8423949002/ Keithgreenfan (talk) 13:37, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

One other note: Covenant Eyes (and I would wager the others as well) explicitly prohibit having the software installed without a user’s knowledge or consent. The Wiki article is unbalanced and leaves a misleading impression by leaving this detail out. Again, the wired article is about one church abusing the software and misusing it, violating their terms of service.

https://www.covenanteyes.com/legal/end-user-license-agreement/ Keithgreenfan (talk) 14:43, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Sandstein. The preexisting version of the article was neutral and accurately represented the sources. The new edits read like an apologia for the vendors involved. MrOllie (talk) 20:12, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree with @MrOllie's assessment. We do not characterize the use of such software as "abuse" or not. We merely describe it as the available reliable sources describe it. We don't even mention what could in fact be termed abuse - that the one church described in the Wired article apparently compels its members and staff to use the software. That's because this article is about the category of software, not that particular church. And as to "leaving out the detail" that one maker of such software prohibits its surreptitious use - we don't mention that because the article does not even describe such a use; it takes it as a given that the users of such software install it themselves. Sandstein 20:39, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Sandstein and @MrOllie,

The current version of the article is not neutral, but rather hostile and inaccurate in it's depiction of the purpose of accountability software. You say it "records the user's Internet activity and reports it to an authority figure". That is flat out factually incorrect. You are describing how one church used the software as if their use of it = the purpose of the software. No different than if you linked to an article describing a single instance of a Hollywood producer abusing actresses and said "The purpose of being a Hollywood producer is to abuse actresses".

@mrollie, maybe there's a better way to word it but it's not an "apologia" for the vendors, it's purely an accurate description of what they are used for and why people choose to use them (myself and many million others included). The current description reads like an attempt to mislead Wikipedia readers into thinking the software is designed to do something that it's not designed to do, and in fact that the software makers prohibit.

Can both of you please comment further? Several of the changes I made were direct quotes from the articles that you are referring to right now. Why were those quotes removed? Keithgreenfan (talk) 20:54, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

As an example of the hostile nature of the current version, to use the term 'shameware' as an equivalent name for the software completely distorts the purpose of the software. The term was used by *one member* of a church that abused accountability software. To use that single member's quote to describe an entire category of software (that actually includes *combating* shame in all of the materials I've ever read over 20+ years) is false and misleading. Does that make sense? Keithgreenfan (talk) 21:10, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

'Shameware' is used by the sources, so Wikipedia should use it as well. If you find this 'hostile', well, all I can say is that you should read over WP:NPOV. Wikipedia's neutrality policy doesn't mean that articles should avoid offending anyone, it says that Wikipedia articles should reflect the points of view found in reliable sources - and this article reflects the tone of the sources well. MrOllie (talk) 22:03, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi @MrOllie, it is inaccurate to say "'Shameware' is used by the sources, so Wikipedia should use it as well". In the article, it *quotes* a single member of the church that abused accountability software as saying "It's more like 'shameware' and it's just another way the church controls you." Do you think it's accurate to mischaracterize an entire industry based on one user's opinion, which is refuted in the same article? I actually included her quote in my revision as well as Covenant Eyes' comment, direct quotes from the article, but both were reverted.

Agreed that articles shouldn't avoid offending someone but they should be *factual* and this current revision contains false and misleading content. That's different than mere offense. It misleads Wikipedia readers into false conclusions.

You noted that Wikipedia articles should reflect the points of view found in reliable sources. Even the hostile Wired article doesn't have the point of view that @Sandstein wrote in his revision. It doesn't say that all accountability software "records the user's Internet activity and reports it to an authority figure", which is a *false statement*. Not merely misleading, it is factually inaccurate. The article does report that this one particular church used it in that way, AND it reports that Covenant Eyes *objected* to this misuse of it's software. What is your disagreement with what I am saying? If you go back and re-read it you will see what I mean. Keithgreenfan (talk) 22:32, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Wired uses the term both in the title of the article and in their own voice. It is not 'one user's opinion', it is the opinion of Wired.

If we quote the article with context, it says records the user's Internet activity and reports it to an authority figure, such as a parent, teacher, spouse or religious leader. I find this to be a completely accurate summary of what the software does. MrOllie (talk) 22:53, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

@MrOllie, the article doesn't even use the word 'authority figure' anywhere. To be sure we're talking about the same article, link is below. The entire phrase you quoted in green appears nowhere in the article, nor does anything resembling it. At any rate, that's great that you "find this to be a completely accurate summary of what the software does", but it is not. This isn't in dispute. And this is not the only article quoted. If you look at reference link #2 (shown further below), you'll see that the *actual* purpose of accountability is stated not once but twice. Quote #1: "We stepped up our service to better serve those who want to stop looking at porn". And, "As of this year, we’ve been able to help more than 1.5 million people who want to stop looking at pornography". That speaks to the actual purpose of the software. Nowhere in the Wired article or anywhere else does it say what the Wikipedia article misleadingly states.

Wired article

https://www.wired.com/story/covenant-eyes-anti-porn-accountability-monitoring-apps/

Article about CovEyes

https://www.freep.com/story/money/business/top-workplaces/2021/11/14/covenant-eyes-2021-michigan-top-workplaces/8423949002/ Keithgreenfan (talk) 23:56, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

It appears in our article - the one on Wikipedia. I was simply pointing out that your partial quote was misleading. MrOllie (talk) 23:58, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh I see. Ok, so it's a mix of truth and falsehoods. "Records the user's Internet activity" is 100% accurate and true. "And reports it to an authority figure, such as a parent, teacher, spouse or religious leader" is FALSE as a blanket statement. I'm saying this as someone who has used this type of software and been around hundreds of people who have used it for 20+ years. Never even once have I seen it being used with an authority figure. I've never seen even one time where accountability software encouraged this and in fact I've frequently see them *discourage* it (in some cases it's actually prohibited).

A more accurate statement would be "and reports it to another individual as designated by the user, often called an 'accountability partner'".

Also, the word 'shameware' is *not* the opinion of Wired. They use 'shameware' in *both* the title and the one time they used it directly in QUOTES. In other words, in both the title and that one instance, they are still quoting the one user who said this. It is an *inaccurate* description, and even SHE said 'it is MORE LIKE shameware', not saying what it actually IS. I think it would be fair to *quote* her in a section in the article, and also include Covenant Eyes' response from the same article. I'd included both quotes earlier but the change was reverted.

Again, it's pretty fundamental that Wikipedia describe what something actually does. The way the article was worded for the past 20+ years was accurate. Just because Wired quoted a single person a few days ago shouldn't be used as a reason to redefine an entire category of software in a negative light all of a sudden. The current wording has a negative bias that isn't even based on the Wired article. ACCURATE negative content is totally fair but this is not that.

I should also note this isn't the only article. Others quoted already in the Wiki article better describe what the software is actually used for. The previous links in the original edit that mostly went untouched for years also explained it more accurately. Keithgreenfan (talk) 00:10, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Fascinating. How did you come to be aware of the pornography habits of hundreds of individuals? MrOllie (talk) 00:30, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

@MrOllie, with all due respect that appears to be a snide or snarky comment. I’ve tried to be respectful of you although this is an intense disagreement. If I’ve not been, I apologize. I would appreciate it if you do the same. To answer your question, I don’t know of those habits nor did I claim to. What I am aware of and been a part of is a system of small groups where individuals desire to get free and choose to ‘pair up’ to be accountable to each other for their online habits, using several of the software packages referred to in this article. In the past 20 years, and this is admittedly a guess, we’ve probably had well over 1000 men and several hundred women do this (and many have gotten free as a result). Main point: I’ve never seen it as anything but voluntary and peer to peer.

Now: can you comment on my point about the quoting of the term ‘shameware’, and my summary of a more accurate description of what the software does? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keithgreenfan (talk • contribs) 00:50, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

See my comments above - I don't find repeating ourselves and going around in circles to be productive. MrOllie (talk) 00:54, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Your comments earlier didn't address my response :).

However, I agree.

@MrOllie and @Sandstein, I've opened a dispute page as seen below. Hopefully we can get to a resolution via this method.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Accountability_software Keithgreenfan (talk) 01:13, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

@Sandstein, thank you for noting my error by putting Salon instead of Wired, not sure where my brain was. Never heard of "WP:WALLOFTEXT" before but I'll try to be brief :). So far, you and @MrOllie have indiscriminately reverted all of my changes. It's incorrect that I did "not point out how exactly it is, in their view, inaccurate". I gave a detailed explanation above. This article reports on one church's alleged misuse of this type of software, but that misuse shouldn't be turned into a redefining of what the software is used for. The Wiki article right now doesn't even reflect what the Wired article says, and it's unbalanced with other articles on this topic. What the software is used for is clear and the current Wiki article does not accurately describe that. Keithgreenfan (talk) 12:28, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Rather than removing sourced information User:keithgreenfan, how about adding an equally sourced counter-point? If you can find reputable, reliable, independent sources that speak to the benefits of this software- then a paragraph can be written based on that information to balance the article. Nightenbelle (talk) 13:24, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

@Nightenbelle, @Sandstein, @MrOllie:

I've made another attempt at editing the page that will hopefully work for everyone. I've added a new source to the first paragraph that more accurately describes what accountability software is used for. I use direct quotes from the new article rather than my own words. In paragraph #2, I updated it to simply describe more precisely how the software works. The vast majority of these packages only do keyword searches, while a couple of have recently added screenshots. I left paragraphs 3 and 4 untouched. Lastly, I added a final paragraph to summarize elements of the Wired report, including some of the wording that Sandstein had used in his original edit. Hopefully this will be reasonable to everyone. If not, please comment here and let's work through to a reasonable resolution. Thanks :). Keithgreenfan (talk) 16:18, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Making a few cosmetic changes around the margins does not resolve the disputes with your edits that have been articulated on this talk page. MrOllie (talk) 16:36, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

@MrOllie, Not cosmetic. Did you read the change? I added a new source in the first paragraph and quoted directly from it. It’s an accurate description of what accountability software was created for and used for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keithgreenfan (talk • contribs) 16:42, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you changed some stuff around the margins, but the core of the dispute - the definition of what the software does and the minimization of the term 'shameware' are the primary issue, and in that your edits do not vary. Using a quote from one of the software vendors (even if you found that quote in usatoday) is obviously not going to fly from a neutrality perspective. MrOllie (talk) 16:46, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

@Nightenbelle, I have added other sources, and even added quotes from existing sources (including this Wired article) but they keep getting reverted. The issue I have is with the root description of the software which was rewritten days ago to allegedly reflect the Wired article, which it doesn’t. The root description is now misinformation. If you look back at prior (sourced) descriptions you’ll see what I mean.

I’ll make another attempt sometime today. In an earlier attempt I keep the current wording but moved it to a section on abuse of the software, but that was reverted too. Keithgreenfan (talk) 13:42, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

This time- try building the additions here- that way they can be discussed before and avoid reverting. Nightenbelle (talk) 16:28, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. Hopefully we can have a better discussion today than yesterday. Concern is that (a) the current version contains misinformation, (b) MrOllie did not address several key points I made yesterday and devolved into snarky comments, and (c) Sandstein only briefly chimed in. Hopefully it will go smoother with you involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keithgreenfan (talk • contribs) 16:38, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

We're off to a rocky start already. See WP:NPA. MrOllie (talk) 16:57, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Let's start a fresh section. At @Nightenbelle's suggestion, I'll post recommended revisions here for discussion. Apologies if this is long but if we're doing it this way there's not a lot of choice. Let me know your thoughts when you get a chance.

Below is recommended paragraph #1. This is an accurate summary of what the software is used for, with two sources. The new Wired article doesn't say what the current reading of the Wikipedia article says. Nowhere does it even use the term 'authority figure' or indicate that only parents, teachers, etc. can be accountability partners. In fact, the article itself quotes CovEyes as objecting that that approach. This is simply an inaccurate description. The article I posted contains an accurate description.

Wired quote a single church member who coined the term 'shameware'. Wired used her quote in the title and one other place, but correctly left it in *quotes*. It is quoting her word. She doesn't even say the software *is* shameware, she says "it's more *like* 'shameware', and it's just another way the church controls you." In a later paragraph I include this quote and CovEyes' response. By including it as a synonym for the software itself, that appears to show bias against the software as opposed to just reporting facts about it.

Paragraph #1 Recommendation

---

Accountability software is a type of software that records the user's Internet activity and reports it to an accountability partner.[1] The purpose of such software is to "equip people with tools that provide protection and encourage accountability and trust in the fight against Internet temptation" which is "largely the fight against online pornography"[2]. 1. Church Counsels Women Addicted to Pornography at nytimes.com 2. Michigan Firm Aims to Fight Temptation Online at USA Today — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keithgreenfan (talk • contribs) 17:22, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with this proposal. Just the first sentence is problematic: it omits that this is not any kind of benign, everyday software, but surveillance software, with all the privacy implications this has. "Reports it to an accountability partner" is purportedly sourced to this NYT article, but is in fact not supported by that source: the article mentions "accountability partner" and surveillance software in passing and not in relation to each other. Describing an "accountability partner" as the only possible recipient of the reports is also misleading, since this term implies a partnerial relationship between equals, but the Wired article shows that this software can just as well (and may even be more often) used in a coercive, nonconsensual manner. I could go on, but won't: in my view, your approach is mainly concerned with downplaying the obvious problems that can arise from the coerced use of this software, and borders on an advertisement. This violates WP:NPOV. Sandstein 17:44, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Sandstein, thanks for responding :). The point about the source on sentence #1 is valid - that source had been there previously and I just left it in place but didn't check it. I'll do some more digging. Regarding 'surveillance software', surveillance definition is "close observation, especially of a suspected spy or criminal." Doesn't seem to apply here. I especially object to the link to the word 'spyware' behind the phrase as it implies something being done without the user's knowledge. This is inaccurate as far as the intent of the software.

As for saying 'accountability partner' alone is misleading, Wired reports *one* church that abused the software. You're guessing when you say "and may even be more often". I've never seen it used this way in 20+ years and would say it's a one off. It's totally fair to say it *could* be misused that way, but should be clearly noted for accuracy that this misuse goes against the policies of most if not all accountability software companies. The way you word it, it implies that the misuse is actually the *intended* purpose of the software which is inaccurate. Does that make sense?

Lastly, you said I am concerned with downplaying problems that can arise from coerced use of this software. Actually, if you look back at the paragraph I added previously (which I'll get to in this discussion), I included your own wording to describe how it was misused and even *added* the girl's quote who called it shameware. So that is incorrect, I am fine with including that as it is factual that it can be abused. I think it's only accurate to include the CovEyes response as well that states clearly their opposition to this. How is it in advertisement to simply state accurately what the software does? Keithgreenfan (talk) 18:14, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Article splitting along POV lines

Splitting the article into positive and negative versions as an IP editor just did is a blatant WP:POVFORK. We cannot do that - one topic equals one article. MrOllie (talk) 18:09, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Rfc on Accountability Software

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The outcome of this RfC is not to change Sandstein's wording of the first sentence of this article. There are two closes possible here: (1) Consensus in favour of the current version, despite Keithgreenfan's stalwart and impassioned dissent; and (2) No consensus. By our rules, "no consensus" means "no change", and therefore both closes have the same outcome in practice. I see no need to choose between them.—S Marshall T/C 14:35, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

---

Should the first sentence use the term 'shameware' and 'surveillance software' as synonyms for accountability software, and should the software be defined based on how one church abused this type of software? Keithgreenfan (talk) 22:48, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

On 09/22/2022, Wired published an article describing one church's abuse of accountability software. An editor rewrote the entire 'accountability software' Wikipedia article to make it appear that this church's misuse was the *purpose* the entire software category is used for. He also used one church member's comment to inaccurately recategorize the entire type of software. It took on a very hostile and non-neutral tone, violating WP:NPOV in the following ways:

- Avoid stating opinions as facts - "reports it to an authority figure, such as a parent, teacher, spouse or religious leader". Written in Wikipedia's voice. There is no source listed for this. No source I'm aware of says this, including the Wired article.

- Prefer nonjudgmental language - "shameware", "The purpose of such software is to change the user's behavior by exposing them to shame". Written in Wikipedia's voice, and again there is no source listed for this. Wired article doesn't say this.

- Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views - it elevates a single source's description of one church abusing the software vs. several other articles (referenced in this and previous version) that simply describe what it's designed to do.

I've made two attempts to incorporate the issues raised by Wired in a neutral way, incorporating both sides. Both were reverted. I'm sure it can be improved but hopefully it's a start. Link to my most recent edit is below. Would love feedback, one way or the other. Thank you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Accountability_software&oldid=1112494691

Keithgreenfan (talk) 22:53, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

This RFC ends on Saturday 10/29 (If I understand correctly how RFCs work). Right now we have 3 opposed to a change, 3 in favor of a change, and 1 who sees both sides of the issue. I say we collaborate on an agreeable compromise. In particular I'm pinging those who jumped in after the initial debate: @LokiTheLiar, @HTGS, @Woodroar, and @Pincrete. As this is my first RFC I'm open to suggestions. Thanks. Keithgreenfan (talk) 21:34, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

That count is not accurate. When the RFC runs out, I'll make a request for a formal closure by a neutral party (though the usual channel for such requests), which we would then all abide by.MrOllie (talk) 21:57, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi @MrOllie, it is accurate. You, Sandstein and Woodroar are opposed to changes. HTGS, Pincrete, and I are in favor of changes. Loki was initially opposed but came back later to say he could see both sides of the discussion. Either way, as I said I'd like to collaborate on an agreeable compromise which is what I was aiming for in the first place. I assumed you and Sandstein weren't interested in further discussion based on prior comments, but if you are I hope we can come up with something reasonable. Keithgreenfan (talk) 22:53, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Tangential discussion about RfCs generally
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@Keithgreenfan you really don’t need to manage the RFC like this. When it ends someone will close it, or someone can request a closure if consensus isn’t clear. While it is ongoing you don’t need to ping people or encourage participation. I appreciate that you are new to this, but you will get accusations of WP:BADGERING if you push the discussion too much. — HTGS (talk) 23:22, 24 October 2022 (UTC) Hi @HTGS, thank you that is super-helpful, and admittedly surprising. I'd thought the whole point of an RFC (and Wikipedia in general) was for people who disagreed to collaborate and find a solution. Certainly didn't think it would be seen as 'badgering'. Thanks for the tip. Keithgreenfan (talk) 23:32, 24 October 2022 (UTC) You were linked to that same essay by Loki weeks ago. MrOllie (talk) 23:41, 24 October 2022 (UTC) First, is this not you badgering me MrOllie? :) Yes I saw that and commented on it at the time. As I said then, I didn't get how it applied in this case. HTGS's comments bring clarity, for me at least, as apparently this is not an attempt to collaborate but to collect people's opinions on a topic, full stop. And he noted the one who opens the RFC doesn't need to 'manage' it. I would have assumed the initiator of just about anything *would* need to manage it. I'm learning the Wikipedia way and it is ... interesting. Keithgreenfan (talk) 00:03, 25 October 2022 (UTC) An RfC is just that: a request for comment from outsiders, so to formally and clearly get feedback that can be acted on. Opinions differ, and discussion is encouraged, but many people find that a single person trying to discuss the issue with every single participant is usually too much. As you’ll see, even our current discussion is starting to get in the way of the rest of the RfC. The mass of text will be difficult to evaluate by someone who has come new to the conversation. Imagine trying to read through every sub-thread before voting; sometimes this is most necessary to fully understand the issue, but other times it just bogs you down in trying parse who cares about what. Ideally each participant’s full take on the issue should be clear and apparent by their top level comment (the one with a bullet next to it). Because I’ve taken this thread a bit too far off topic, I’m going to collapse it, just to help with the length of the present page. You are welcome to tag me on your or my talk page if you want to discuss RfCs more generally. — HTGS (talk) 03:18, 25 October 2022 (UTC) There is a blurred line between seeking to find compromise and collaboration vs. replying to every commenter with your opinion, or trying to draw conversation out of every participant. To be fair, your participation here has largely been productive, but Wikipedia is a unique environment, where we are working as though in a mature workplace, but on volunteer hours and with a workforce that anyone can sign up to. You have to understand that our reaction to zealousness is not going to be the same as if you were in the office. We are used to inexperienced editors being far more pushy than is helpful about their particular take on an issue (and we are used to seeing some very “wrong” takes). Additionally, it’s worth evaluating your specific comments against the fact that an experienced editor can usually tell how invested each participant is, and overinvestment is too often read as a red flag in itself (whether it is a signal of bad faith or not). While I largely agree with you on the subject of the RFC, it is a relatively minor issue on a very minor page; try not to feel like you need to work like a lawyer does, representing his or her client fully and aggressively. — HTGS (talk) 03:03, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

So, an RFC is not a vote, but I'd also like to say clearly that I consider myself a supporter of the current state of the article. I did say something about possibly avoiding the term "shameware" (and would be okay with a compromise along those lines) but overall I think the WIRED source is the strongest source in the article by far and so should receive the large majority of WP:WEIGHT. Loki (talk) 18:24, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @LokiTheLiar! And thanks again for helping me 'learn the ropes' of the Wikipedia way :). Keithgreenfan (talk) 00:14, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

• Yes. The current first sentences of this article are a fair paraphrase of the Wired article, which writes For a monthly fee, some of these apps monitor everything their users see and do on their devices, even taking screenshots (at least one per minute, in the case of Covenant Eyes) and eavesdropping on web traffic, WIRED found. The apps then report a feed of all of the users’ online activity directly to a chaperone—an “accountability partner,” in the apps’ parlance. and “shameware” apps are lesser-known tools that are used to keep track of behaviors parents or religious organizations deem unhealthy or immoral.. There were few reliable sources to choose from for this topic. Wired just published a very negative article, so it should be unsurprising that the tone of the article has shifted a bit to match - this is what WP:NPOV requires. I should also note that the version the OP prefers (found here) replaces the definition with a blatantly promotional quote from the mission statement of one of the companies producing this software. - MrOllie (talk) 23:07, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  Hi @MrOllie. Can you give me the quote on WP:NPOV that describes why the tone of the article has to shift to the most recently published article? I just read the whole page and didn't see it, but may have missed it.

  WP:NPOV does say "Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view." The Wired article describes a view based on one single church's abuse of the software, while every other source describes it's actual, factually accurate purpose and usage.

  You said my version "replaces the definition with a blatantly promotional quote". The quote in question says, "equip people with tools that provide protection and encourage accountability and trust in the fight against Internet temptation" which is "largely the fight against online pornography". In what way specifically is that promotional? It describes what the software actually does.

  I have no problem going back to the version that was there before any of the past week's edits, I just thought a direct quote would be more precise. The original description was "software which monitors and reports Internet usage, in order to incentivize the avoidance of any content deemed objectionable." Accurate, but less precise - but I wouldn't mind reverting to this. Keithgreenfan (talk) 00:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  I believe that back-and-forth discussions in a RFC are largely unhelpful and discourage new editors from participating. If you have general questions about WP:NPOV I suggest asking at WP:TEAHOUSE. MrOllie (talk) 00:13, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  Actually, WP:RFC says "Responses may be submitted in a variety of formats. Some RfCs are structured as a series of distinct responses, one per editor. Others result in a threaded (indented) conversation involving multiple editors." I don't have general questions about WP:NPOV @MrOllie, I have one specific one because you based one of your key arguments on it. Can you back up your argument with a quote from WP:NPOV? I didn't see it. Keithgreenfan (talk) 00:35, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  What you're doing right now by trying to argue with every opposing comment is called bludgeoning and is generally frowned-upon. Loki (talk) 00:42, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  I'll take that under advisement. The article says "Sometimes, a long comment or replying multiple times is perfectly acceptable or needed. When someone takes persistence to a level that overwhelms or intimidates others, or limits others' ability to interject their opinions without worrying about being verbally attacked, then this activity has risen to a level of abuse."

  I somehow doubt anyone is remotely intimidated by me or overwhelmed, and I've not verbally attacked anyone or limited anyone's ability to interject their opinions. What is the best way to reply directly to a point being raised and argue against it if you disagree? I'm happy to modify my approach if needed. I'm basically raising one point here - asking MrOllie for the part of WP:RFC that backs his point. Keithgreenfan (talk) 01:01, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  The purpose of an RFC is to request outside input. I suggest you wait to see what the outside input ends up being before you worry about another around of arguments. That's what I'm going to do. MrOllie (talk) 01:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  Well, Loki is our first outside input. I want to hear everyone’s input, but we have to have a way to challenge each other’s points. You’ve challenged mine, sometimes with valid points, and I would expect you (or anyone) to expect to be challenged as well.Keithgreenfan|talk — Preceding undated comment added 01:20, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

• Yes. Unfortunately, we don't have that many reliable sources on this topic. Of those sources, the longest and most comprehensive one is the Wired one, which is very negative. WP:NPOV doesn't mean we should take a view from nowhere, WP:NPOV means we follow the sources, and if our strongest source is very negative our article needs to reflect that. Loki (talk) 00:06, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks @Loki (love the username by the way)! I don't see anywhere in WP:NPOV that says "the longest and most comprehensive" article should take the lead. Can you show me where it says that or something like it? WP:NPOV says "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." The proportion is completely off here. One single article referencing one single church vs. several other articles referencing how most people use the software.

  I would also say it's your personal opinion that it's the most comprehensive, it is not a fact. My opinion is that it is the most limited, as it only covers abuse of the software by a single church, as opposed to it's general use by the masses. Keithgreenfan (talk) 00:40, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for the compliment!

  NPOV isn't about just counting the number of sources. Many small and marginal sources don't equal one large, well-reported, mainstream article. As it happens, we have many small and marginal sources and one large, well-reported, mainstream article. Whether or not you think it's so, or if you have quibbles with WIRED's reporting, that's how NPOV works. Loki (talk) 00:45, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  That's your personal opinion, not Wikipedia policy as stated in WP:NPOV unless I missed it. If I missed it please show me. Keithgreenfan (talk) 00:51, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, as the author of this version of the lead, for the reasons explained above: The current version reflects what available reliable sources, primarily the Wired article, say about this topic. Sandstein 09:22, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

How should the following USA Today article be incorporated into this page? This is a comprehensive article as opposed to the Wired article which covers abuse of accountability software by one church. As WP:NPOV notes, content should be fair and proportional without editorial bias.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2014/04/27/evangelical-internet-accountability/8246477/ Keithgreenfan (talk) 23:36, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

That's USA Today reprinting an article from Covenant Eyes's home town paper. It's a puff piece that spends most of its time uncritically quoting the company and we shouldn't give it much weight, if any. It certainly should not be used to undercut truly independent sourcing. MrOllie (talk) 23:44, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Okay MrOllie, but as has been noted, there are few sources for this topic that Wikipedia deems "reliable". WP:NPOV says "Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." Considering we have few to choose from, and this article accurately describes the purpose of accountability software, why not use it? The goal is accuracy right? Keithgreenfan (talk) 23:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

sometimes but not this time. We can not use old, lower quality sources to undercut newer high quality ones. Per my comments above I will not be engaging in further attempts to drag the RFC into more back-and-forth. Feel free to take the last word on this digression if you feel you need to. MrOllie (talk) 23:59, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

So as a point of clarity, why do you object to a discussion? The whole point of an RFC is to discuss and collaborate, right? As opposed to just declaring your piece and stopping.

WP:RFC says “An RfC leads to a discussion on the page that hosts the RfC. This "RfC discussion" is an ordinary Wikipedia discussion that follows the normal rules and procedures”. Keithgreenfan (talk) 00:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

• From the Wired article it’s not clear at all that people actually call it “shameware”.

“I wouldn’t quite call it spyware,” says a former member of Gracepoint who was asked to use Covenant Eyes and spoke on the condition of anonymity, due to privacy concerns. “It’s more like ‘shameware,’ and it’s just another way the church controls you.”

It’s more like ‘shameware’ does not exactly suggest that anyone calls this sort of software “shameware” at all. — HTGS (talk) 23:43, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Correct, and the article headline puts shameware in quotes. As in, they are quoting this one former member. They use the word one other place as well, also in quotes. It's false to recategorize an entire type of software based on one single person's halfway partial opinion. Keithgreenfan (talk) 23:49, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

While that's true, it's quoted in the headline and elsewhere in the body of the article. I can see the argument for avoiding it because of the quotes that are always around it, though. Loki (talk) 02:14, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Loki. Related point: the following line in the Wiki article that supposedly describes what accountability software does is inaccurate. The Wired article doesn't contain a statement that accurately describes what it does. An older version of the Wiki article had an okay description sourced from The Christian Post, which of course isn't a 'Trusted Source'. Dilemma is that most accurate reporting about this type of software comes from Christian-based news sources (example below). Thoughts/suggestions on how to handle?

----------------

The purpose of such software is to change the user's behavior by exposing them to shame and possibly other consequences for Internet activity that the authority figure deems inappropriate, such as viewing pornography.

----------------

https://www.christianpost.com/news/covenant-eyes-privacy-concerns-warns-against-spying.html Keithgreenfan (talk) 12:28, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

@HTGS, thank you for commenting earlier. How would you answer the lede question in this RFC? I realize it seems obvious but don't want to put words in your mouth. Keithgreenfan (talk) 01:19, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I would remove the simplistic emphasis on “shameware”. Either de-bold the word and remove it from the lead, or rephrase to something like … because of this function, it has been labelled “shameware”…. The Wired citation could include the quote I pulled above.

I don’t have a particular concern about “surveillance software”, but because of the link, I would edit that article (Spyware) to remove “malicious” as a necessary condition. I’m pretty sure readers will get the idea about obvious potential for maliciousness from the lead without it; it would also make the sentence less awkward (… is software with malicious behavior that aims to gather information… — HTGS (talk) 01:51, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @HTGS. Ironically, my second rewrite of the article (see link below) included the Wired quote you pulled but it was reverted. We are in agreement I think that the individual's direct quote should be used. Would love to hear your critique of my earlier revision.

Earlier Revision: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Accountability_software&oldid=1112494691

I tend to think the description of Spyware as malicious is accurate, but probably could be worded better. The main thing I'm saying for this article is that describing accountability software as 'spyware' is inaccurate because the vast majority of users voluntarily install it on their own devices, knowing full well that it will track all their activity. It's what the users WANT to happen. Similarly, since "surveillance" means "close observation, especially of a suspected spy or criminal", it doesn't really apply to this type of software. Thoughts? Keithgreenfan (talk) 12:16, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

• Yes. This seems completely fine. Wired, as the most in-depth, reliable secondary source, is effectively the majority viewpoint here, so we need to give it due weight. (And we do.) I don't buy the argument that sources don't use the term "shameware". Yes, the first use is from a quote, but Wired goes on to call these apps "shameware" in its own voice in the very next paragraph. Woodroar (talk) 22:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

  Hi @Woodroar, thank you for chiming in! I'm curious what your thoughts are on "shameware" appearing in quotes in the paragraph you referenced, and even in the headline. They are basically still quoting the one user who said "It's more like 'shameware'", rather than speaking in their own voice. My opinion is we should quote the girl's comment later in the WP article, and the vendor's response, rather than defining a whole software category by one user's bad experience. Would love to hear your thoughts on this idea! Keithgreenfan (talk) 12:34, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

  I read it as Wired using the term in its own voice—as I mentioned above—and calling attention to it. Like "look at this new term. It's apt and we're using it." There's no indication that they disagree with the characterization of these apps as "shameware". As for the headline, that's irrelevant per WP:HEADLINES. Woodroar (talk) 21:08, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

  Got it. Thanks Woodroar! Keithgreenfan (talk) 00:01, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

• No. (Summoned by bot) Wired does not use the term "in its own voice" AFAI can see - it quotes a former church member "I wouldn’t quite call it spyware, … It’s more like ‘shameware,’ and it’s just another way the church controls you.” The very quote implies that this church member has recently coined the term. Throughout Wired puts the term in quotes implying that it is quoting the member or that the software "could be called this", rather than that "shameware" is an established synonym or established colloquial term. The term/quote could be used in some other way (that this church member and/or Wired referred to the software thus) but not that this is an established term - YET. Pincrete (talk) 10:10, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for chiming in @Pincrete! Nicely stated. Keithgreenfan (talk) 15:16, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

• Noting here that I have listed this RFC at requests for closure, please be patient. - MrOllie (talk) 15:20, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks @MrOllie. Keithgreenfan (talk) 12:24, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

• Yes and no. "Shameware" and "surveillance software" are fine, but the current "reports it to an authority figure, such as a parent, teacher, spouse or religious leader" language is non-neutral and as an absolute statement of the functionality of the software, unverifiable and not supported by the sources. The Wired article says reports go to "a chaperone" and quotes the Covenant Eyes spokesperson as saying accountability partners should be "such as close personal friends and family members" and that the company "discourages using its app in relationships with a power imbalance". As a personal note, I have been in religious subcultures where software like this was used, and though I think it's creepy as hell and would never use it myself, I've only ever heard of it being used between peers for mutual accountability. Our own linked Accountability partner article is consistent with this view. I suggest something like "reports it to a person selected by the user, who may be a peer accountability partner or an authority figure, such as a parent, teacher, spouse or religious leader". There is no reason to make things sound worse than they really are. Thparkth (talk) 03:03, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Another Approach To Resolving WP:NPOV Issue

Let me try another approach to discussing the current page edit. As noted before, I believe it’s an unambiguous violation of WP:NPOV, but I realized you guys might simply not be familiar with the software and therefore wouldn’t be aware of why the current edit would be so alarming to someone like me.

So let me try an illustration. Imagine an article in a reliable source that exposed serious privacy issues in Microsoft Windows. To make it proportional to ‘Accountability software’, let’s say there were 100 additional articles from reliable sources on this topic. Let’s also say there were already 1000 existing articles just discussing Windows and what it does.

Now imagine the Wikipedia article for Windows reading like the below paragraph. A user of Windows would instantly, and justifiably, discredit Wikipedia as a valid source. Of course the privacy issue should be covered, but the entire software shouldn’t be redefined to something it’s not. Agree or disagree, do you understand my concern? It would be great if we could actually have a discussion about this and try to reach consensus instead of just reverting every change I make.

@Sandstein, @MrOllie, @LokiTheLiar

—————- Microsoft Windows, or spyware, is a form of malicious software designed to expose users’ privacy. (Continues in this vein, you get the idea) Keithgreenfan (talk) 20:37, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that the situations aren't parallel. There are only four other sources on this article and none of them are as comprehensive as the WIRED article. Also the article on Microsoft Windows does contain a pretty large amount of criticism. Loki (talk) 20:49, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Valid point about low # of sources Loki. However, check out my second attempt at editing below. I added a USA Today source, and the New York Times one was already there. MrOllie pointed out one legit fix that needs to be made, but overall these two sources cover what the software is actually used for. Then, of course, the Wired article should be covered in a balanced way. Thoughts?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Accountability_software&oldid=1112494691 Keithgreenfan (talk) 20:56, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

@LokiTheLiar, since the RFC was forcibly reinstated, I moved my point about the USA Today story to a new question in the RFC, FYI. Keithgreenfan (talk) 23:37, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

The way that we reach consensus is to allow dispute resolution to proceed normally, such as the RFC above. The RFC will settle the matter one way or the other. - MrOllie (talk) 20:56, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Doesn’t have to be MrOllie. If we can have a respectful discussion the normal way (which Wikipedia prefers, and I tried to do initially), there’s no need to get more formal. I’m making a second attempt at a normal discussion. Keithgreenfan (talk) 20:58, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

No, I insist. Dispute resolution is the only way forward. We cannot wipe the slate clean and start over for a 3rd time. At this point I think there are 3 options on the table: We let the RFC run and respect the result, you WP:DROPTHESTICK, or some admin decides that you're being disruptive and removes you from the discussion. - MrOllie (talk) 21:01, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I think that the more you edit war over the status of the RFC, the more likely that third option becomes. - MrOllie (talk) 21:09, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I made the initial change. You are the one who keeps reverting it over and over. Keithgreenfan (talk) 21:20, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Keithgreenfan - You are forum shopping. You first requested moderated discussion at DRN, but then you requested to withdraw that case because you realized that DRN would be a slow deliberative process. Were you wanting something fast? Maybe you should have asked for a Third Opinion. Now you have started an RFC, and now are trying a contrafactual argument while the RFC is running. You chose the RFC option. Let the RFC run for 30 days. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Robert McClenon, thanks. Yes, learning the Wikipedia system the hard way I guess. I don’t know if Third Opinion would have been better or not. I had no idea that if I started an RFC I was stuck with it for 30 days even if it didn’t appear effective. The Wikipedia page on it didn’t seem to indicate that but I may have missed it. Yes, looking for a faster process as the current edit of the page unfortunately contains clear misinformation. Trying to work within the RfC system since that’s the only option now.

As for a ‘contrafactural’ argument, I assume you mean the new section on ‘Another Approach To Resolving WP:NPOV Issue’? If so, I abandoned it after being told I have to stick with the RFC. Hopefully this approach will work out after all. I just honestly hate seeing people misled by the current article version. I’ll take any additional advice you might have! Keithgreenfan (talk) 05:47, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

@Keithgreenfan, so far not a single other person has shared your point of view about the current version of the article being wrong. On Wikipedia, you are required to recognize when consensus is not on your side and to stop beating dead horses; otherwise, you are being disruptive and may be sanctioned. Sandstein 11:03, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi to you too @Sandstein. I've been told the RFC needs to remain open for at least a month. All discussion is taking place within the RFC now; this additional post I made yesterday is basically abandoned. Keithgreenfan (talk) 12:03, 3 October 2022 (UTC)