Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 6:22 am


Post by dhmo » Wed Mar 30, 2011 6:22 am

Someone is censoring sites according to their political viewpoint. I have just found a site that was given an almost nil rating in all respects. The site is http://www.co2web.info/ it expounds a viewpoint by Tom V. Segalstad (born 1949) is a Norwegian geologist at the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo. He selling a couple of books and offering a view that is contrary to the mainstream about CO2 in the atmosphere the rating is ridiculous. Whoever is doing this should be cautioned and banned if they will not desist. It tries to suppress thought and will cause others to start rating sites run by Mann, Hansen, Gore and so on. It will certainly affect WOT’s brand. I have also seen the Connercourt Australian publishers rated in the same way.


RE: Censorship

Post by Guest » Wed Mar 30, 2011 8:37 am

@ dhmo,

First of all, WOT does not censor anything. It is a measure of trust and if a user takes that as a certainty it is his/her problem, not WOT's.

WOT simply calculates the level of trust that is predominant with weighted raters (NOT necessarily the majority . . . WOT is a Meritocracy, not a Democracy where majority rules.)

WOT does not censor anything . . . that's an absurd claim.

I visit some sites that are rated red by WOT. I ignore the warning and go right through to the site. WOT does not stop me from doing this.

You are free to ignore the WOT rating. For example, the WOT rating for Facebook is green. I myself don't trust ANY social networking site, consequently I don't visit FB.

(You can set WOT to block, but that is a user setting and thus it is user imposed censorship, NOT WOT.)

Do some people rate according to their political views? Of course, but if you know how WOT works you will see that people who do this consistently don't have much reliability . . . weight.

"Whoever is doing this"
Even for people with weight, one person can hardly sway a rating. Clearly you have no clue about how WOT works.

Now here's something for you to consider. Perhaps the people that rated the site just flat out don't trust this site.

And, BTW, if you look at the confidence level of the rating calculation (indicated by the human torso icons on the scorecard . . . another item in how WOT works that you obviously have no clue about), you will see that it's pretty low. Meaning that the calculation itself, at this point in time, is pretty iffy.

When the confidence level increases, and if the site still remains red, then it will be a pretty safe bet that seasoned WOT raters DO NOT trust the site.

To assume that a poor rating is motivated by political concerns is an absurd leap (unless of course you can read the minds of the people that rated,)

So, unless you're clairvoyant (which you apparently are), it would not be a certainty what the motivations were.

Your claim is speculation . . . nothing more.

Posts: 875
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2011 7:22 pm

RE: Censorship

Post by siblingshot » Wed Mar 30, 2011 11:00 am

@ BobJam

In complete agreement.

@ dhmo

Whoever is doing this should be cautioned and banned if they will not desist."

Really ? You advocate the airbrushing out of existence any such views which contradict a perceived ideal ? On whose authority ?

That reeks suspiciciously of totalitarian censorship to me.

Understand this. Ratings on WOT are merely a measure of trust. Individual ratings - comments even - may be informed by empirical evidence, but in essence they are the expression of opinion. You have the right to disagree with said opinion. You have the right to openly contradict that opinion.

But no one individual is the final arbiter in defining the status quo.

Suggested reading:



As for the site submitted.



RE: Censorship

Post by Guest » Wed Mar 30, 2011 3:39 pm

I wouldn't worry about it too much, it's not going to affect the rating much. Just ask people to rate it, to get more good ratings.

Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 6:22 am

RE: Censorship

Post by dhmo » Wed Mar 30, 2011 11:54 pm

The problem WOT has is that someone is usingin your facility to censor sites. I did not think that that would be so difficult to understand you have got it back to front. This has the capacity to undermine the brand. This means means such behaviour dilutes it worth. It seems whoever I have come across seeks to censor publishers who they just do not like. Saying that someone who critizes the IPCC is a danger to children is bizarre. I do not need to see many more before I remove the plug in and recommend on blogs I frequent that they do the same. If there is to be no check on a rating even there are complaints about it being wildly wrong then WOT ceases to have any value.

Posts: 21225
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 4:02 am

RE: censor sites

Post by c۞g » Thu Mar 31, 2011 5:30 am

As explained, WOT censors nothing.
You have full control how the add-on performs; having the ability to adjust warning levels to your own requirements - in Settings.

WOT collects data from people like yourself to determine the reputation of a website.
All you need to do is rate the site good and you do not receive warnings.

If a compromised site is caught for malware or phishing, it's offered a low rating by a trusted source.
When the source removes the site from their database, their scorecard reference is removed as well, but the site's reputation remains low until someone else offers it ratings. All WOT ratings decrease in time; nothing is permanent, this allows for reputations to accurately reflect the current state of the site.

Clearly you have not learned how WOT works - it's a user submitted reputation rating service, if you do not participate then the sites you visit will not earn the ratings you would like to see them have.


Digging his heals in

Post by Guest » Thu Mar 31, 2011 6:21 am

@ g7w,

My sense is that this fellow is digging his heals in, and is going to insist that WOT censors . . . no matter what.

Nevermind the fact that the site he referenced is now green or that he clearly hasn't got the slightest clue how WOT works.

I mean he will insist that 2 + 2 = 5.

I think we're feeding oats to a dead horse here.

Gives a bad name to the proponents of Global Warming if all of them refuse to learn how things work like this guy does.

Posts: 875
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2011 7:22 pm

RE: Digging his heals in

Post by siblingshot » Fri Apr 01, 2011 8:50 pm

@ BobJam


The phrase "flogging a dead horse" is the one most commonly applied; in this instance we are guilty of spoonfeeding a rigid nag caviare. Pickled Roe.

The OP delivered this verdict according to a jaundiced, pre-determined agenda.

He has no interest in dialogue; the mouth is unzipped and the ears resolutely pinned shut.

Foaming inanities, with no conviction or attempt to engage in anything beyond groundless moral outrage.

Ashes to ashes.

Posts: 3291
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 12:52 pm

RE: Censorship

Post by alphacentauri » Sat Apr 02, 2011 2:30 am

WOT doesn't censor. That's what is bothering you. It allows everyone a voice, even people who feel they should rate a site based on content.

When you use a rating service, you need to know it's strengths and limitations. WOT's limitation is that the same human factor that makes it superior for identifying fraudulent sites also causes controversial sites to get mixed ratings. I'm sure plenty of people vote down sites with views opposite to yours, too.

As people have said, the reviewer's reliability weighting is based on how consistently he/she votes with other reviewers. A reviewer that spends a lot of time voting controversial sites up or down will have little weight, even if his/her activity score is platinum.


RE: Censorship

Post by Guest » Wed Aug 17, 2011 2:56 pm

WOT may not censor, but the mechanism by which the censorship is occurring (and much of it is political) indicates that WOT needs to revise the method by which sites are blacklisted. It's all too easy for a single-issue group to hammer its political opponents. I've appreciated WOT for eliminating viruses and hate sites, but now it's gotten ridiculous -- schools, research organizations, and various political organizations are being blacklisted -- and you can't even see who or why. This is making WOT much less useful and I'm about to ditch it unless you guys fix it.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests