Talk:Yahoo

"Web services provider"

The linked article on web services does not remotely describe what Yahoo is or ever was. Yahoo is an online news, information and advertising platform. According to its press release boilerplate: "Yahoo serves as a trusted guide for hundreds of millions of people globally, helping them achieve their goals online / Yahoo Advertising offers omnichannel solutions and powerful data" 2601:642:4600:BE10:F868:3FAB:454B:AE16 (talk) 19:33, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Shadow311 (talk) 19:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I could make it clearer. Maybe someone else could take a look. 2601:642:4600:BE10:F868:3FAB:454B:AE16 (talk) 20:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

What Shadow meant was that you should write (in this exact format): "Change [original text in article] to [new text] because [your reason]", and also providing reliable sources to back up your claims. I'm guessing you want a more detailed description of Yahoo in the lead section? If that's the case, please read WP:SUMMARY and MOS:LEAD. The lead section, especially the first sentence, should only briefly describe the defining characteristics of the subject. Liu1126 (talk) 22:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not asking for it to be more detailed. I'm asking for it to be minimally accurate. Secondary-source answers to "what is Yahoo's business?" are hard to come by because it's such a well-established brand as to require no introduction. Meanwhile, the current incorrect description has no source either. While Yahoo may indeed provide web services that companies use to purchase ad placements, describing its business that way is like describing Walmart as a logistics firm rather than a retailer. 2601:642:4600:BE10:F868:3FAB:454B:AE16 (talk) 23:11, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

The point being made is that you are using Wikipeida's Edit Request procedure. (as necessary for an unconfirmed user and a semi-protected page) As such, your request MUST be in the form outlined above by Liu1126 - "Please change these exact words in the article to these exact other words as supported by this specific reference." If it isn't, the procedure is to not act on your request. PianoDan (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

No, I am not required to use any specific form. I am only required to communicate the change clearly. I have indicated what wording should be changed, and to what it should be changed to. The opening sentence is fundamentally inaccurate as to what business Yahoo is in, and it is unhelpful to delay the point as if this were a court of law where exact forms must be followed. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, etc. 2601:642:4600:BE10:4859:BD9C:88BC:D3ED (talk) 19:44, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: You are not required under threat of punitive action to follow the process as described in WP:EDITXY, but as mentioned by 2 other editors the process is then that any edit may decline your edit request - as I am doing now - as not actioned.

This is not a binding denial, in that your concern - that the linked article on web services does not remotely describe what Yahoo is or ever was - cannot be addressed . Any editor is free to address such concern. This "denial" simply means your request will be removed from the queue of requested edits. You may not add this request back into the queue unless you address concerns in the original denial or are requesting a different change. Such action may be interpreted as disruptive and may result in editors requesting administrator review.

This appears bureaucratic, and to a degree it is, but all this process does is place upon you the same burden of effort that would exist if you were able to edit the page yourself. —Sirdog (talk) 06:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Same edge, but different argument: "Yahoo is an American web services provider." A provider is a supplier of a service or multiple services; it is the natural or legal person who organises the delivery of these services. We are talking in this article not about the operator Yahoo! Inc. who is mentioned in the following sentence. This article is not about Yahoo the company, this article is about Yahoo the web service portal. Therefore the first sentence is more precise saying: "Yahoo is an American web services portal." Detailed information about the operating companies can be given to

• Yahoo! Inc. (1995–2017) or
• Yahoo! Inc. (2017–present).

This here is about the main product of both companies. --Gunnar (talk) 17:33, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

On chapter Yahoo#History: As there is already an article about Yahoo!, the company, and a specialized history article on the company this paragraph should not repeat the content in a redundant way but should focus on the history of the web portal Yahoo! When did which services appear, how was the user statistics, when were certain services discontinued, which was the most popular one and did this change? How many computer centers have been needed to operate the web services, how did the international expansion grow with the international language versions, etc.

Deep details about the business character of the company should be merged into Yahoo! Inc. (2017–present)#History or the more extensive History of Yahoo. Gunnar (talk) 16:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

proprietary web portal

@Twillisjr: What exactly is a "proprietary web portal"? Do not all operators of web portals own the content which they offer? Most of the are paid by attention of users, so the are delivering ads as side transmission to the payload. Maybe wikipedia and similar projects are excluded. --Gunnar (talk) 13:14, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

The differences between licenses is explained here: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

Free / Open Source / Proprietary

The free definition contains (2) of the (4) freedoms which involve the source being available. If the source isn’t available, it is neither free nor open source and is proprietary. Twillisjr (talk) 14:43, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

But a web portal isn't a piece of software. Of course, it's powered by software, and most of that software is proprietary, but that's not the same thing. I saw that you also added "proprietary" in Google Search, Amazon (company) and Reddit (I guess there are more). But that term doesn't make much sense for websites like Google and Yahoo. Most major websites run on software that's (at least partly) proprietary, yet we don't call YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, Outlook.com and many, many others "proprietary", because these aren't pieces of software that one can download and install somewhere. They are services. The software that runs nytimes.com is not the same thing as the website that's available at nytimes.com. The same is true for yahoo.com, google.com, amazon.com, reddit.com, etc. — Chrisahn (talk) 15:55, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Regarding Google and Amazon, review https://www.defectivebydesign.org/ which is a development by https://www.fsf.org/ Twillisjr (talk) 16:01, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Seems irrelevant for this discussion. Please explain. — Chrisahn (talk) 16:10, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Use a search engine with the keywords “DRM” and “Proprietary” to learn how they go hand in hand. One search engine says, “ Digital Rights Management (DRM) refers to technologies and strategies used to control access to and use of digital content, including proprietary software and copyrighted works, to prevent unauthorized copying, distribution, or modification.” Twillisjr (talk) 16:58, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

I still don't see how that is relevant for the current discussion. The current discussion concerns the question what a "proprietary web portal" is supposed to be, and whether it even makes sense to apply the word "proprietary" to web portals and other websites. — Chrisahn (talk) 17:03, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

I’m comfortable removing the word proprietary from the header, but not removing the word and link in the infobox. Twillisjr (talk) 17:09, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Why? — Chrisahn (talk) 17:12, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Point me to the source code (all of it unlike twitter) and we can change it to its respective license. Is it GPL? Twillisjr (talk) 17:21, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Are you talking about the content available at yahoo.com or the software that runs yahoo.com? — Chrisahn (talk) 17:45, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

It’s all proprietary. Prove it’s GPL. Twillisjr (talk) 18:09, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question, and I don't have to prove anything. See WP:BURDEN. — Chrisahn (talk) 18:15, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

I provided 3 links with evidence that the license is proprietary (though I didn’t have to) so the burden to prove it is GPL rests on someone who wants to change it, not myself. Twillisjr (talk) 18:20, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Today Yahoo is more about tabloids and gossip on its website. With some services thrown in.

Its hardly about Yahoo Search anymore and now seems to aire lots of gossip, fake news, and trashy tabloids aired to stir up scandals. It seems like the lead section is far removed from what the portal has become. CaribDigita (talk) 01:20, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Partical Research

Article about volcanic eruption and also use the approches of Literature the traditional review of Literature the conceptual review and we need tha citation the in text citation APA in paragraph ~2026-10194-71 (talk) 05:46, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

@ ~2026-16152-08 (talk) 23:44, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

COI edit request: Duplicate content from Criticism of Yahoo

Hi! I'm a COI editor for Yahoo through my employer, Porter Novelli. I'm working on some proposed updates for this article, but first wanted to raise a more general question about how much this article should overlap with Criticism of Yahoo.

WP:SPINOFF states that Summary sections are used in a broader article to briefly cover the content of more detailed subarticles. However, the Similar Page Checker tool shows that this page is 46% similar to Criticism of Yahoo, and Duplication Detector identified numerous paragraphs that are verbatim between the two articles, including:

• the entirety of the Criticism section, except for the two sentences under "DMCA notice to whistleblower" and "Censorship of private emails affiliated with Occupy Wall Street protests" – the other 23 paragraphs are verbatim copies
• commentary on the 2010 Yahoo! Groups remodel
• 3 paragraphs on Scott Ard's lawsuit
• the paragraph on paid inclusion in 2004
• the first paragraph on data breaches
• the paragraph on the Flickr redesign
• the paragraph on the Fox IT malware attack

This seems to have initially come about as part of a plan to merge the two articles, but Criticism of Yahoo passed its AFD nomination, resulting in the redundancy. The overall effect, with a Criticism section almost as long as the History section, feels WP:UNDUE, which is I suspect why the content fork to the designated Criticism article was first created.

I propose converting the itemized content above into summary format and incorporating it into the History section rather than keeping it in a designated WP:CSECTION. Happy to take a pass at drafting this if other editors are aligned, but wanted to flag here first in case I was missing something about the duplication of content. Alternatively/additionally, I could rework "Criticism" as "Reception" (per WP:POVFORK, If possible, refrain from using "criticism" and instead use neutral terms such as "perception" or "reception"; if the word "criticism" must be used, make sure that such criticism considers both the merits and faults, and is not entirely negative), moving select items into History as appropriate.

Would love any feedback here to help ensure this article reflects best practices. Thank you! Mary Gaulke (talk) 15:18, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

@LWG, Homo ergaster, Pats322, and Finell: Pinging some folks who have worked on this article in the past few months, in case you'd like to weigh in on the above. Thank you! Mary Gaulke (talk) 13:31, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. My only involvement with this article was to excise a slew of ChatGPT text that was added a while back. I don't plan to be further involved here at this time. -- LWG ^{talk (VOPOV)} 15:25, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Reply 4-JUL-2026

  Please use WP:NPOVN, WP:WPTECH or WP:RfC  

• The {{Edit COI}} template is for specific, actionable requests that a reviewer can singly respond to.
• The COI editor appears to be seeking generalized feedback from other editors, in which case, other, more appropriate tools can be used, including:

1. The neutral point of view noticeboard
2. One or more relevant WikiProjects, such as WP:WPTECH.
3. Requests for comments

Regards,  Spintendo  10:18, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Lost market share to Facebook?

This is quoted prominently but I think it’s over-egging it. Lost market share to Google yes but to Facebook less so. Does anyone have a decent citation for the Facebook claim? SirSiliconBones (talk) 10:48, 13 June 2026 (UTC)