User talk:CrookKilla: Difference between revisions

(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown)

Line 2:

Why are you interested in moderating the Wiki?

So that it works effectively. The first content I looked at was Brilliant, and it strikes me that there's a lot of noise on the page. The TOS eval system (by EFF) - https://OpenTermsArchive.org/en/, ToSdr.org and even its ancestor TOSback.org, handle the bulk of this stuff already, IIRC, and do a better job. Pages could just refer readers there for TOS stuff. Well.. after reading [[Mission Statement]], I see perhaps I'm wrong about this. Perhaps. We should at least be doing a better job than previous systems at concisely communicating the shitty parts of TOS and AUP, if we're going to tackle it at all.

So that it works effectively. The first content I looked at was Brilliant, and it strikes me that there's a lot of noise on the page. The TOS eval system (by EFF) - https://OpenTermsArchive.org/en/, ToSdr.org and even its ancestor TOSback.org, handle the bulk of this stuff already, IIRC, and do a better job. Pages could just refer readers there for TOS stuff. Well.. after reading [[Mission statement|Mission Statement]], I see perhaps I'm wrong about this. Perhaps. We should at least be doing a better job than previous systems at concisely communicating the shitty parts of TOS and AUP, if we're going to tackle it at all.

What do you see as the biggest non-technical problem with the Wiki or its articles at present?

Line 36:

Result when I asked Gemini,

: ~~draft~~ an article for consumerrights.wiki based on archive.is/kZCot :

:Q: Draft an article for consumerrights.wiki based on [http://archive.is/kZCot archive.is/kZCot]*:

Documentation shows [Company Name] employs anti-repair and anti-ownership tactics, utilizing proprietary design constraints and software locks that turn product ownership into a revocable license [Source: archive.is/munged]. These practices, which prioritize corporate control over user autonomy, are part of a broader trend toward subscription-based, non-repairable hardware [Source: archive.is/munged]. For a full analysis of these practices, visit the Consumer Rights Wiki page for this case [[User:CrookKilla|CrookKilla]] ([[User talk:CrookKilla|talk]]) 07:02, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

:A: Documentation shows [Company Name] employs anti-repair and anti-ownership tactics, utilizing proprietary design constraints and software locks that turn product ownership into a revocable license [Source: archive.is/munged]. These practices, which prioritize corporate control over user autonomy, are part of a broader trend toward subscription-based, non-repairable hardware [Source: archive.is/munged]. For a full analysis of these practices, visit the Consumer Rights Wiki page for this case.

: * (which is an archive of https://www.reddit.com/r/disability/comments/1r7oxjy/san_francisco_health_plan_sfhp_caught_playing/)

--[[User:CrookKilla|CrookKilla]] ([[User talk:CrookKilla|talk]]) 07:02, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 Why are you interested in moderating the Wiki?
-So that it works effectively.  The first content I looked at was Brilliant, and it strikes me that there's a lot of noise on the page.  The TOS eval system (by EFF) - https://OpenTermsArchive.org/en/, ToSdr.org and even its ancestor TOSback.org, handle the bulk of this stuff already, IIRC, and do a better job.  Pages could just refer readers there for TOS stuff.  Well.. after reading [[Mission Statement]], I see perhaps I'm wrong about this. Perhaps.  We should at least be doing a better job than previous systems at concisely communicating the shitty parts of TOS and AUP, if we're going to tackle it at all.
+So that it works effectively.  The first content I looked at was Brilliant, and it strikes me that there's a lot of noise on the page.  The TOS eval system (by EFF) - https://OpenTermsArchive.org/en/, ToSdr.org and even its ancestor TOSback.org, handle the bulk of this stuff already, IIRC, and do a better job.  Pages could just refer readers there for TOS stuff.  Well.. after reading [[Mission statement|Mission Statement]], I see perhaps I'm wrong about this. Perhaps.  We should at least be doing a better job than previous systems at concisely communicating the shitty parts of TOS and AUP, if we're going to tackle it at all.
 What do you see as the biggest non-technical problem with the Wiki or its articles at present?
@@ Line 36: / Line 36: @@
 Result when I asked Gemini,
-: draft an article for consumerrights.wiki based on archive.is/kZCot :
+:Q: Draft an article for consumerrights.wiki based on [http://archive.is/kZCot archive.is/kZCot]*:
-Documentation shows [Company Name] employs anti-repair and anti-ownership tactics, utilizing proprietary design constraints and software locks that turn product ownership into a revocable license [Source: archive.is/munged]. These practices, which prioritize corporate control over user autonomy, are part of a broader trend toward subscription-based, non-repairable hardware [Source: archive.is/munged]. For a full analysis of these practices, visit the Consumer Rights Wiki page for this case [[User:CrookKilla|CrookKilla]] ([[User talk:CrookKilla|talk]]) 07:02, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
+:A: Documentation shows [Company Name] employs anti-repair and anti-ownership tactics, utilizing proprietary design constraints and software locks that turn product ownership into a revocable license [Source: archive.is/munged]. These practices, which prioritize corporate control over user autonomy, are part of a broader trend toward subscription-based, non-repairable hardware [Source: archive.is/munged]. For a full analysis of these practices, visit the Consumer Rights Wiki page for this case.
+: * (which is an archive of https://www.reddit.com/r/disability/comments/1r7oxjy/san_francisco_health_plan_sfhp_caught_playing/)
+--[[User:CrookKilla|CrookKilla]] ([[User talk:CrookKilla|talk]]) 07:02, 19 February 2026 (UTC)