Talk:GrapheneOS: Difference between revisions

Line 12:

:What if the criteria must be that the organization or product must provide overwhelming emphasis and work into being either private or secure? For example: My Mullvad VPN article would fit within the criteria because they provide extended features for privacy and security, such as: requiring no private information, using diskless servers, and offering various methods of anonymous payments. However: the Fedora Linux distro would not fit the criteria because their main offer is not security or privacy, rather a beneficial secondary feature. Tails, however, would fit the criteria because their sole purpose is to be an amnesic operating system for the user's security and privacy. Although emphasis is vague, I believe it is just specific enough for people to get the gist and is a good way to categorize which products/organizations should be included on the Wiki! [[User:Pancho|Pancho]] ([[User talk:Pancho|talk]]) 16:54, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

:I think it can be good to have examples of 'good companies'. Its a fine line to balance but I think its something that could help the wiki overall. Maybe an idea to help limit it is to restrict the sourcing policy to only reliable secondary sources for 'good' attributes to cut down on spam or marketing. If a company gets a shout-out for being openly pro-consumer, and its not a marketing piece, imo it deserves a place here. [[User:JackFromWisconsin|JackFromWisconsin]] ([[User talk:JackFromWisconsin|talk]]) 16:58, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

::I agree! It is imperative that we maintain the integrity of the contribution guidelines regardless if the company is "good" or "bad."

::I think secondary sources are valuable for reception and verification, but primary sources would be best when talking about their "Privacy Policy," "Terms of Service," and license. [[User:Pancho|Pancho]] ([[User talk:Pancho|talk]]) 17:06, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 :What if the criteria must be that the organization or product must provide overwhelming emphasis and work into being either private or secure? For example: My Mullvad VPN article would fit within the criteria because they provide extended features for privacy and security, such as: requiring no private information, using diskless servers, and offering various methods of anonymous payments. However: the Fedora Linux distro would not fit the criteria because their main offer is not security or privacy, rather a beneficial secondary feature. Tails, however, would fit the criteria because their sole purpose is to be an amnesic operating system for the user's security and privacy. Although emphasis is vague, I believe it is just specific enough for people to get the gist and is a good way to categorize which products/organizations should be included on the Wiki! [[User:Pancho|Pancho]] ([[User talk:Pancho|talk]]) 16:54, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
 :I think it can be good to have examples of 'good companies'. Its a fine line to balance but I think its something that could help the wiki overall. Maybe an idea to help limit it is to restrict the sourcing policy to only reliable secondary sources for 'good' attributes to cut down on spam or marketing. If a company gets a shout-out for being openly pro-consumer, and its not a marketing piece, imo it deserves a place here.  [[User:JackFromWisconsin|JackFromWisconsin]] ([[User talk:JackFromWisconsin|talk]]) 16:58, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
+::I agree! It is imperative that we maintain the integrity of the contribution guidelines regardless if the company is "good" or "bad."
+::I think secondary sources are valuable for reception and verification, but primary sources would be best when talking about their "Privacy Policy," "Terms of Service," and license.  [[User:Pancho|Pancho]] ([[User talk:Pancho|talk]]) 17:06, 16 August 2025 (UTC)