Talk:Mission statement: Difference between revisions

Line 1:

== Captcha system is bugged on user talk and discussion pages ==

==Captcha system is bugged on user talk and discussion pages==

I went to a user's talk page and tried to add a topic. Wrote it up, clicked to save, it asked me for some Captcha text -- but while there was a text box to enter my answer, there was no Captcha to be seen. This behaviour is consistent across other users' talk pages, as well as this very discussion page: I'm circumventing it by editing the source directly, rather than adding a topic. Yes, I manually copied the following code from another comment: [[User:Skatche|Skatche]] ([[User talk:Skatche|talk]]) 00:01, 27 January 2025 (EST)

Line 5:

Hi; thanks for reporting this. Staff are already working on a fix for this; sorry it took someone so long to see. - [[User:Atsumari|Atsumari]] ([[User talk:Atsumari|talk]]) 02:45, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

== Concern about mission statement ==

==Concern about mission statement==

The mission statement itself is a bit scaring. It's the first page to see and could turn away people that try to look up something in the future. This article has to move at some point to a more inviting page, maybe not in the next time tho. [[User:Tpat90|Tpat90]] ([[User talk:Tpat90|talk]]) 22:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Line 12:

Agree, but until we are aiming to attract readers rather than contributors, I'm happy for us to keep it as is. It'll likely be a while before the wiki is useful to a casual reader [[User:Keith|Keith]]

== Thoughts on archiving sources ==

==Thoughts on archiving sources==

It should be mentioned that this wiki could be used as an index for solicitation with copyright requests, or through some other method, to take down at any point any of the sources listed on each page. Those sources, then, should at least be checked to make sure that they have been captured by the Internet Archive, or through some other service. I think it'd be tedious and unhelpful for every source to directly link to an archive page, but there should be some kind of policy to make sure that these sources are archived. [[User:Liana]] ([[User talk:Liana|talk]]) 17:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

: I think it'd be a much better idea if the sources WERE directly archived and/or pertinent screenshots pushed into the articles themselves so that any replicas of this wiki have them too. The Wiki likely should be easy to replicate, by the way. Maybe with published wiki dumps or such. - [[User:Anonymous]] 20 January 2025

:I think it'd be a much better idea if the sources WERE directly archived and/or pertinent screenshots pushed into the articles themselves so that any replicas of this wiki have them too. The Wiki likely should be easy to replicate, by the way. Maybe with published wiki dumps or such. - [[User:Anonymous]] 20 January 2025

: My worry is that if we do not capture sources (and sources request to be omitted from Internet Archives), they could be lost as has happened before. Link Rot is very real..

:My worry is that if we do not capture sources (and sources request to be omitted from Internet Archives), they could be lost as has happened before. Link Rot is very real..

: I had to use internet archive to download the original software for my Linx tablets (which are now sadly considered to be e-waste), and if I could even suggest people run the tablets on original software (MS Windows 8.1), I would re-upload it to my own website, as the Linx website is dead and nothing (inclusive of Wikipedia, Internet Archive, the copper/fiber providing the connectivity even) is 100% guaranteed to stay up for the rest of forever. - [[User:DrToxic]] ([[user talk:DrToxic|talk]]) 16:18 22 January 2025

:I had to use internet archive to download the original software for my Linx tablets (which are now sadly considered to be e-waste), and if I could even suggest people run the tablets on original software (MS Windows 8.1), I would re-upload it to my own website, as the Linx website is dead and nothing (inclusive of Wikipedia, Internet Archive, the copper/fiber providing the connectivity even) is 100% guaranteed to stay up for the rest of forever. - [[User:DrToxic]] ([[user talk:DrToxic|talk]]) 16:18 22 January 2025

== What is the line in the sand for "new" consumer protection? ==

==What is the line in the sand for "new" consumer protection?==

"A company remotely disabled software of consumers who posted bad online reviews" and "All consumer devices with needless cloud connection were bricked when a company went out of business" would be within scope for the wiki at the very top of the gradient of badness, but where along the gradient do these stories fall out of scope?

# A car manufacturer sells a heated seat subscription even though the consumer already purchased the hardware with their car, but the manufacturer is upfront & honest about it when they purchase the car

#A car manufacturer sells a heated seat subscription even though the consumer already purchased the hardware with their car, but the manufacturer is upfront & honest about it when they purchase the car

# A manufacturer that sells hardware also provides the software necessary to use said hardware, but it requires a subscription service lest the hardware becomes a brick which they are transparent about when purchasing the hardware

#A manufacturer that sells hardware also provides the software necessary to use said hardware, but it requires a subscription service lest the hardware becomes a brick which they are transparent about when purchasing the hardware

# Same as 2 with some free functionality in the software, but the software (for the hardware you already purchased and own) is designed to be frustrating to use (subjective guess) to force users to buy the software subscription

#Same as 2 with some free functionality in the software, but the software (for the hardware you already purchased and own) is designed to be frustrating to use (subjective guess) to force users to buy the software subscription

# Same as 2, but the software is a perpetual purchase at least (though still the hardware will be a brick without purchasing the software)

#Same as 2, but the software is a perpetual purchase at least (though still the hardware will be a brick without purchasing the software)

#* Does it make a difference between how "reasonable" the price is (subjective)? E.g. $100 purchase vs $5000 to keep your $5000 hardware from turning into a brick

#*Does it make a difference between how "reasonable" the price is (subjective)? E.g. $100 purchase vs $5000 to keep your $5000 hardware from turning into a brick

# Company which sold yearly releases for software that users would own in perpetuity (think Photoshop CS6 or pre-365 Microsoft Office) changes to a subscription model for new releases going forward so that now users who relied on their software can never "own" it again

#Company which sold yearly releases for software that users would own in perpetuity (think Photoshop CS6 or pre-365 Microsoft Office) changes to a subscription model for new releases going forward so that now users who relied on their software can never "own" it again

#* This is "okay" in today's climate due to the gradual erosion of consumer ownership, but would have been an outrage 40+ years ago

#*This is "okay" in today's climate due to the gradual erosion of consumer ownership, but would have been an outrage 40+ years ago

# Same as 5 except the company never sold perpetual licenses in the first place and is just riding on the coattails of other companies which have eroded consumer ownership

#Same as 5 except the company never sold perpetual licenses in the first place and is just riding on the coattails of other companies which have eroded consumer ownership

# A consumer device has a cloud connection, which hasn't yet been bricked because the company is still in business

#A consumer device has a cloud connection, which hasn't yet been bricked because the company is still in business

#* It would be fair game once consumer devices are bricked, but do we have to wait? Is ''any'' cloud connection which can result in a loss of functionality the consumer paid for fair game even before it is lost? I imagine consumers would want to know that a device they plan on purchasing is at risk before they make the purchase

#*It would be fair game once consumer devices are bricked, but do we have to wait? Is ''any'' cloud connection which can result in a loss of functionality the consumer paid for fair game even before it is lost? I imagine consumers would want to know that a device they plan on purchasing is at risk before they make the purchase

# "Schematics or Die": if the device is fully offline and cannot be affected by the manufacturer post-sale but they refuse to provide schematics to owners upon request, is that "intentionally [creating] obstacles to repair"?

#"Schematics or Die": if the device is fully offline and cannot be affected by the manufacturer post-sale but they refuse to provide schematics to owners upon request, is that "intentionally [creating] obstacles to repair"?

#* Does it change if the reason is because they don't own all of the IP and can't legally release schematics? (would we even know the difference between whether this was the case or they were intentionally making it harder to repair if they did not directly tell us?)

#*Does it change if the reason is because they don't own all of the IP and can't legally release schematics? (would we even know the difference between whether this was the case or they were intentionally making it harder to repair if they did not directly tell us?)

These all "take away the consumer's right of ''ownership''." in the words of the mission statement, but have become increasingly accepted and "fair" with the erosion of consumer ownership over time. They are not even necessarily a "revocation" of ownership because the consumer was never provided the opportunity of ownership in the first place. [[User:DrewW]] ([[User talk:DrewW|talk]]) 06:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

:I'll try to tackle a few of these:

: For #1: yep, even if it's clearly communicated, it's taking away ownership and the ability to use your thing. The fact that it's clearly communicated and so on should be mentioned in the article for it.

:For #1: yep, even if it's clearly communicated, it's taking away ownership and the ability to use your thing. The fact that it's clearly communicated and so on should be mentioned in the article for it.

: Similarly, for 2 through 4, I think we can apply similar logic - it's anti ownership even if reasonable. i do hesitate at #4 though, as I think in that case it might come down to reasonability, and whether the cost of the software was advertised as part of the cost of the package, or whether it was more hidden.

:Similarly, for 2 through 4, I think we can apply similar logic - it's anti ownership even if reasonable. i do hesitate at #4 though, as I think in that case it might come down to reasonability, and whether the cost of the software was advertised as part of the cost of the package, or whether it was more hidden.

:Honestly, 5 and 6 are tricky... I'd need to think more about them.

: For 7: It's fair game, as the product would be bricked right now if a tree fell on their datacentre's powerline. it's a problem when a perfectly good product has the potential to be worthless just becausee someone else turns off their computer. Obviously, if nothing has yet happened, the article should reflect that, and state as much.

:For 7: It's fair game, as the product would be bricked right now if a tree fell on their datacentre's powerline. it's a problem when a perfectly good product has the potential to be worthless just becausee someone else turns off their computer. Obviously, if nothing has yet happened, the article should reflect that, and state as much.

: For 8: I'd say so, though I think this might fall under the umbrella of 'old' consumer protection, and need to meet a size threshold. Situations like that one you mention with the IP being unreleaseable are exactly why tone is so important for this wiki - we should simply state that they are not releasing the schematics, that this is causing people problems, and any statements the company has publicly made. We should not ascribe intentionality to the company's actions when we do not know their intentions.

:For 8: I'd say so, though I think this might fall under the umbrella of 'old' consumer protection, and need to meet a size threshold. Situations like that one you mention with the IP being unreleaseable are exactly why tone is so important for this wiki - we should simply state that they are not releasing the schematics, that this is causing people problems, and any statements the company has publicly made. We should not ascribe intentionality to the company's actions when we do not know their intentions.

: For now, we're mostly going to be drawing the line by feel, as we don't want to discourage people from writing potentially relevant articles. In a month or so we might revisit exactly where the line lies.

:For now, we're mostly going to be drawing the line by feel, as we don't want to discourage people from writing potentially relevant articles. In a month or so we might revisit exactly where the line lies.

:I think the key takeaway is that even if it's a relatively benign example, because we will be presenting things in a factual and neutral tone, it's fine to make an article about it. We will do our absolute best not to misrepresent things, so a benign example will read less severely to an extreme example when someone is reading an article.

:Consider also that somewhere in the policy (I forget where, but I definitely wrote it) it mentions that it's perfectly ok to write articles about relevant positive incidents, such as steam removing forced arbitration.

: Thank you very much for the question, and I hope this provides some insight as to our stance! [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 20:59, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

:Thank you very much for the question, and I hope this provides some insight as to our stance! [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 20:59, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Here’s my take on this:

Line 71:

[[User:Imolith|Imolith]] ([[User talk:Imolith|talk]]) 17:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

== Hiding the table of contents on the homepage ==

==Hiding the table of contents on the homepage==

Now that this page is much shorter, I think it would be a good idea to hide the table of contents by placing <nowiki>__NOTOC__</nowiki> at the top of the page (right above the first line, with no blank line in between). Right now, the table of contents takes up half of the available space on my screen. [[User:Waldo|Waldo]] ([[User talk:Waldo|talk]]) 07:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

: Steve from GN even hid it himself in his video: https://youtu.be/zdLr5CKFiJs?si=yL7pRnuAHhbtbTk5 [[User:Waldo|Waldo]] ([[User talk:Waldo|talk]]) 16:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

:Steve from GN even hid it himself in his video: https://youtu.be/zdLr5CKFiJs?si=yL7pRnuAHhbtbTk5 [[User:Waldo|Waldo]] ([[User talk:Waldo|talk]]) 16:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

:: Hey [[User:Waldo|@Waldo]] you are right, should have gotten that done yesterday! [[User:Kostas|Kostas]] ([[User talk:Kostas|talk]]) 16:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

::Hey [[User:Waldo|@Waldo]] you are right, should have gotten that done yesterday! [[User:Kostas|Kostas]] ([[User talk:Kostas|talk]]) 16:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

::: Thanks! To be fair, I didn't ping anyone yesterday :) [[User:Waldo|Waldo]] ([[User talk:Waldo|talk]]) 16:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Thanks! To be fair, I didn't ping anyone yesterday :) [[User:Waldo|Waldo]] ([[User talk:Waldo|talk]]) 16:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

== Rewriting the Main Page and some broader site organization work ==

==Rewriting the Main Page and some broader site organization work==

This is a vision I have for what the main page of this site could be, and how some organizational changes could be made on the site overall to make it more approachable, more educational, and easier to navigate. I've previously sent this to Support in Discord, but thought it might be good to share here. This proposal is better than the one I had sent in Discord.

Line 93:

ToC Proposal:

# What is "consumer protection" and how are we taking action?

#What is "consumer protection" and how are we taking action?

# Right To Repair

#Right To Repair

# Right to Own / Right to Use What You Own

#Right to Own / Right to Use What You Own

# Right to Privacy

#Right to Privacy

# Right to the Justice System (Forced Arbitration)

#Right to the Justice System (Forced Arbitration)

# Right to Cancel

#Right to Cancel

# Violations by Company

#Violations by Company

# Resources for consumers

#Resources for consumers

# Fight for change / Take Action

#Fight for change / Take Action

# Contribute to this wiki

#Contribute to this wiki

Each of these sections would be brief. The 'Right To Repair' section would introduce the issue, link to a couple of relevant articles for examples ('John Deere fails to uphold right to repair agreement' & 'Future Motion Onewheel skateboard...'), and link to a dedicated 'Right To Repair' page.

Line 136:

Suggestions:

* Put 'main page' at the top, followed by 'All Pages', then 'Categories', then the other links below those.

*Put 'main page' at the top, followed by 'All Pages', then 'Categories', then the other links below those.

* Add a 'Consumer Rights' navigation box with the 'R2R', Right to Privacy, and dedicated-page links that I've suggested in the ToC section above.

*Add a 'Consumer Rights' navigation box with the 'R2R', Right to Privacy, and dedicated-page links that I've suggested in the ToC section above.

+(added by Cire)+ On mobile navigation is clunky and there's no hyperlink or similar from the main page to the All pages search section. Mobile formats are what people will have all the time. Imagine if this wiki could be an app (or shortcut) on mobile and can be as easily referenced as one would a shoping list texted to you.

[[User:ReedyBear|ReedyBear]] 22:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

== Relevant biographical data ==

==Relevant biographical data==

This is in regards to companies and organizations. The information included about describing them should be info that supports CAT efforts. One point in particular is information that establishes a chain of responsibility for that company or organization so as to give consumers a pathway to approach problems with those most responsible for a policy or condition arising. For example the company info box I added a line item to identify if they are a public or privately held company, which would be information to establish who is responsible for the company's activities.

Line 148:

In the case of an organization such as government agencies or commissions, where that organization derives its authority from would also establish how to address its behavior. It doesn't need to be a history lesson, just the point of its inception and under what conditions it was allowed to be made, such as what specific law or action established it. [[User:MadMallard|MadMallard]] ([[User talk:MadMallard|talk]]) 09:33, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

== Scope: are intentionally habit forming products in scope? ==

==Scope: are intentionally habit forming products in scope?==

What about habit forming products? Do they fall within wiki scope, or out of scope, or borderline?

Line 163:

[[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 16:43, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

:Dark patterns are in scope - Gambling in video games or anything digital can probably work as they are used in articles, but I don’t think you can base a whole article on it. Really doubt betting at all though, but if it is very hard to cancel some random subscription you have to do?? it might be worth mentioning. I think the [[project:Inclusion guidelines|Inclusion guidelines]] help a bit more as scope is its purpose.

:darn, i wrote an essay [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|<i><b>AnotherConsumerRightsPerson</b></i>]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 05:32, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-== Captcha system is bugged on user talk and discussion pages ==
+==Captcha system is bugged on user talk and discussion pages==
 I went to a user's talk page and tried to add a topic. Wrote it up, clicked to save, it asked me for some Captcha text -- but while there was a text box to enter my answer, there was no Captcha to be seen. This behaviour is consistent across other users' talk pages, as well as this very discussion page: I'm circumventing it by editing the source directly, rather than adding a topic. Yes, I manually copied the following code from another comment: [[User:Skatche|Skatche]] ([[User talk:Skatche|talk]]) 00:01, 27 January 2025 (EST)
@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 Hi; thanks for reporting this. Staff are already working on a fix for this; sorry it took someone so long to see. - [[User:Atsumari|Atsumari]] ([[User talk:Atsumari|talk]]) 02:45, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
-== Concern about mission statement ==
+==Concern about mission statement==
 The mission statement itself is a bit scaring. It's the first page to see and could turn away people that try to look up something in the future. This article has to move at some point to a more inviting page, maybe not in the next time tho. [[User:Tpat90|Tpat90]] ([[User talk:Tpat90|talk]]) 22:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
        Agree, but until we are aiming to attract readers rather than contributors, I'm happy for us to keep it as is. It'll likely be a while before the wiki is useful to a casual reader  [[User:Keith|Keith]]
-== Thoughts on archiving sources ==
+==Thoughts on archiving sources==
 It should be mentioned that this wiki could be used as an index for solicitation with copyright requests, or through some other method, to take down at any point any of the sources listed on each page. Those sources, then, should at least be checked to make sure that they have been captured by the Internet Archive, or through some other service. I think it'd be tedious and unhelpful for every source to directly link to an archive page, but there should be some kind of policy to make sure that these sources are archived.  [[User:Liana]] ([[User talk:Liana|talk]]) 17:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
-: I think it'd be a much better idea if the sources WERE directly archived and/or pertinent screenshots pushed into the articles themselves so that any replicas of this wiki have them too. The Wiki likely should be easy to replicate, by the way. Maybe with published wiki dumps or such. - [[User:Anonymous]] 20 January 2025
+:I think it'd be a much better idea if the sources WERE directly archived and/or pertinent screenshots pushed into the articles themselves so that any replicas of this wiki have them too. The Wiki likely should be easy to replicate, by the way. Maybe with published wiki dumps or such. - [[User:Anonymous]] 20 January 2025
-: My worry is that if we do not capture sources (and sources request to be omitted from Internet Archives), they could be lost as has happened before. Link Rot is very real..
+:My worry is that if we do not capture sources (and sources request to be omitted from Internet Archives), they could be lost as has happened before. Link Rot is very real..
-: I had to use internet archive to download the original software for my Linx tablets (which are now sadly considered to be e-waste), and if I could even suggest people run the tablets on original software (MS Windows 8.1), I would re-upload it to my own website, as the Linx website is dead and nothing (inclusive of Wikipedia, Internet Archive, the copper/fiber providing the connectivity even) is 100% guaranteed to stay up for the rest of forever. - [[User:DrToxic]] ([[user talk:DrToxic|talk]]) 16:18 22 January 2025
+:I had to use internet archive to download the original software for my Linx tablets (which are now sadly considered to be e-waste), and if I could even suggest people run the tablets on original software (MS Windows 8.1), I would re-upload it to my own website, as the Linx website is dead and nothing (inclusive of Wikipedia, Internet Archive, the copper/fiber providing the connectivity even) is 100% guaranteed to stay up for the rest of forever. - [[User:DrToxic]] ([[user talk:DrToxic|talk]]) 16:18 22 January 2025
-== What is the line in the sand for "new" consumer protection? ==
+==What is the line in the sand for "new" consumer protection?==
 "A company remotely disabled software of consumers who posted bad online reviews" and "All consumer devices with needless cloud connection were bricked when a company went out of business" would be within scope for the wiki at the very top of the gradient of badness, but where along the gradient do these stories fall out of scope?
-# A car manufacturer sells a heated seat subscription even though the consumer already purchased the hardware with their car, but the manufacturer is upfront & honest about it when they purchase the car
+#A car manufacturer sells a heated seat subscription even though the consumer already purchased the hardware with their car, but the manufacturer is upfront & honest about it when they purchase the car
-# A manufacturer that sells hardware also provides the software necessary to use said hardware, but it requires a subscription service lest the hardware becomes a brick which they are transparent about when purchasing the hardware
+#A manufacturer that sells hardware also provides the software necessary to use said hardware, but it requires a subscription service lest the hardware becomes a brick which they are transparent about when purchasing the hardware
-# Same as 2 with some free functionality in the software, but the software (for the hardware you already purchased and own) is designed to be frustrating to use (subjective guess) to force users to buy the software subscription
+#Same as 2 with some free functionality in the software, but the software (for the hardware you already purchased and own) is designed to be frustrating to use (subjective guess) to force users to buy the software subscription
-# Same as 2, but the software is a perpetual purchase at least (though still the hardware will be a brick without purchasing the software)
+#Same as 2, but the software is a perpetual purchase at least (though still the hardware will be a brick without purchasing the software)
-#* Does it make a difference between how "reasonable" the price is (subjective)? E.g. $100 purchase vs $5000 to keep your $5000 hardware from turning into a brick
+#*Does it make a difference between how "reasonable" the price is (subjective)? E.g. $100 purchase vs $5000 to keep your $5000 hardware from turning into a brick
-# Company which sold yearly releases for software that users would own in perpetuity (think Photoshop CS6 or pre-365 Microsoft Office) changes to a subscription model for new releases going forward so that now users who relied on their software can never "own" it again
+#Company which sold yearly releases for software that users would own in perpetuity (think Photoshop CS6 or pre-365 Microsoft Office) changes to a subscription model for new releases going forward so that now users who relied on their software can never "own" it again
-#* This is "okay" in today's climate due to the gradual erosion of consumer ownership, but would have been an outrage 40+ years ago
+#*This is "okay" in today's climate due to the gradual erosion of consumer ownership, but would have been an outrage 40+ years ago
-# Same as 5 except the company never sold perpetual licenses in the first place and is just riding on the coattails of other companies which have eroded consumer ownership
+#Same as 5 except the company never sold perpetual licenses in the first place and is just riding on the coattails of other companies which have eroded consumer ownership
-# A consumer device has a cloud connection, which hasn't yet been bricked because the company is still in business
+#A consumer device has a cloud connection, which hasn't yet been bricked because the company is still in business
-#* It would be fair game once consumer devices are bricked, but do we have to wait? Is ''any'' cloud connection which can result in a loss of functionality the consumer paid for fair game even before it is lost? I imagine consumers would want to know that a device they plan on purchasing is at risk before they make the purchase
+#*It would be fair game once consumer devices are bricked, but do we have to wait? Is ''any'' cloud connection which can result in a loss of functionality the consumer paid for fair game even before it is lost? I imagine consumers would want to know that a device they plan on purchasing is at risk before they make the purchase
-# "Schematics or Die": if the device is fully offline and cannot be affected by the manufacturer post-sale but they refuse to provide schematics to owners upon request, is that "intentionally [creating] obstacles to repair"?
+#"Schematics or Die": if the device is fully offline and cannot be affected by the manufacturer post-sale but they refuse to provide schematics to owners upon request, is that "intentionally [creating] obstacles to repair"?
-#* Does it change if the reason is because they don't own all of the IP and can't legally release schematics? (would we even know the difference between whether this was the case or they were intentionally making it harder to repair if they did not directly tell us?)
+#*Does it change if the reason is because they don't own all of the IP and can't legally release schematics? (would we even know the difference between whether this was the case or they were intentionally making it harder to repair if they did not directly tell us?)
 These all "take away the consumer's right of ''ownership''." in the words of the mission statement, but have become increasingly accepted and "fair" with the erosion of consumer ownership over time. They are not even necessarily a "revocation" of ownership because the consumer was never provided the opportunity of ownership in the first place. [[User:DrewW]] ([[User talk:DrewW|talk]]) 06:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
 :I'll try to tackle a few of these:
-: For #1: yep, even if it's clearly communicated, it's taking away ownership and the ability to use your thing. The fact that it's clearly communicated and so on should be mentioned in the article for it.
+:For #1: yep, even if it's clearly communicated, it's taking away ownership and the ability to use your thing. The fact that it's clearly communicated and so on should be mentioned in the article for it.
-: Similarly, for 2 through 4, I think we can apply similar logic - it's anti ownership even if reasonable. i do hesitate at #4 though, as I think in that case it might come down to reasonability, and whether the cost of the software was advertised as part of the cost of the package, or whether it was more hidden.
+:Similarly, for 2 through 4, I think we can apply similar logic - it's anti ownership even if reasonable. i do hesitate at #4 though, as I think in that case it might come down to reasonability, and whether the cost of the software was advertised as part of the cost of the package, or whether it was more hidden.
 :Honestly, 5 and 6 are tricky... I'd need to think more about them.
-: For 7: It's fair game, as the product would be bricked right now if a tree fell on their datacentre's powerline. it's a problem when a perfectly good product has the potential to be worthless just becausee someone else turns off their computer. Obviously, if nothing has yet happened, the article should reflect that, and state as much.
+:For 7: It's fair game, as the product would be bricked right now if a tree fell on their datacentre's powerline. it's a problem when a perfectly good product has the potential to be worthless just becausee someone else turns off their computer. Obviously, if nothing has yet happened, the article should reflect that, and state as much.
-: For 8: I'd say so, though I think this might fall under the umbrella of 'old' consumer protection, and need to meet a size threshold. Situations like that one you mention with the IP being unreleaseable are exactly why tone is so important for this wiki - we should simply state that they are not releasing the schematics, that this is causing people problems, and any statements the company has publicly made. We should not ascribe intentionality to the company's actions when we do not know their intentions.
+:For 8: I'd say so, though I think this might fall under the umbrella of 'old' consumer protection, and need to meet a size threshold. Situations like that one you mention with the IP being unreleaseable are exactly why tone is so important for this wiki - we should simply state that they are not releasing the schematics, that this is causing people problems, and any statements the company has publicly made. We should not ascribe intentionality to the company's actions when we do not know their intentions.
-: For now, we're mostly going to be drawing the line by feel, as we don't want to discourage people from writing potentially relevant articles. In a month or so we might revisit exactly where the line lies.
+:For now, we're mostly going to be drawing the line by feel, as we don't want to discourage people from writing potentially relevant articles. In a month or so we might revisit exactly where the line lies.
 :I think the key takeaway is that even if it's a relatively benign example, because we will be presenting things in a factual and neutral tone, it's fine to make an article about it. We will do our absolute best not to misrepresent things, so a benign example will read less severely to an extreme example when someone is reading an article.
 :Consider also that somewhere in the policy (I forget where, but I definitely wrote it) it mentions that it's perfectly ok to write articles about relevant positive incidents, such as steam removing forced arbitration.
-: Thank you very much for the question, and I hope this provides some insight as to our stance! [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 20:59, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
+:Thank you very much for the question, and I hope this provides some insight as to our stance! [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 20:59, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
 Here’s my take on this:
@@ Line 71: / Line 71: @@
 [[User:Imolith|Imolith]] ([[User talk:Imolith|talk]]) 17:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
-== Hiding the table of contents on the homepage ==
+==Hiding the table of contents on the homepage==
 Now that this page is much shorter, I think it would be a good idea to hide the table of contents by placing <nowiki>__NOTOC__</nowiki> at the top of the page (right above the first line, with no blank line in between). Right now, the table of contents takes up half of the available space on my screen. [[User:Waldo|Waldo]] ([[User talk:Waldo|talk]]) 07:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
-: Steve from GN even hid it himself in his video: https://youtu.be/zdLr5CKFiJs?si=yL7pRnuAHhbtbTk5 [[User:Waldo|Waldo]] ([[User talk:Waldo|talk]]) 16:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
+:Steve from GN even hid it himself in his video: https://youtu.be/zdLr5CKFiJs?si=yL7pRnuAHhbtbTk5 [[User:Waldo|Waldo]] ([[User talk:Waldo|talk]]) 16:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
-:: Hey [[User:Waldo|@Waldo]] you are right, should have gotten that done yesterday! [[User:Kostas|Kostas]] ([[User talk:Kostas|talk]]) 16:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
+::Hey [[User:Waldo|@Waldo]] you are right, should have gotten that done yesterday! [[User:Kostas|Kostas]] ([[User talk:Kostas|talk]]) 16:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
-::: Thanks! To be fair, I didn't ping anyone yesterday :) [[User:Waldo|Waldo]] ([[User talk:Waldo|talk]]) 16:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
+:::Thanks! To be fair, I didn't ping anyone yesterday :) [[User:Waldo|Waldo]] ([[User talk:Waldo|talk]]) 16:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
-== Rewriting the Main Page and some broader site organization work ==
+==Rewriting the Main Page and some broader site organization work==
 This is a vision I have for what the main page of this site could be, and how some organizational changes could be made on the site overall to make it more approachable, more educational, and easier to navigate. I've previously sent this to Support in Discord, but thought it might be good to share here. This proposal is better than the one I had sent in Discord.
@@ Line 93: / Line 93: @@
 ToC Proposal:
-# What is "consumer protection" and how are we taking action?
+#What is "consumer protection" and how are we taking action?
-# Right To Repair
+#Right To Repair
-# Right to Own / Right to Use What You Own
+#Right to Own / Right to Use What You Own
-# Right to Privacy
+#Right to Privacy
-# Right to the Justice System (Forced Arbitration)
+#Right to the Justice System (Forced Arbitration)
-# Right to Cancel
+#Right to Cancel
-# Violations by Company
+#Violations by Company
-# Resources for consumers
+#Resources for consumers
-# Fight for change / Take Action
+#Fight for change / Take Action
-# Contribute to this wiki
+#Contribute to this wiki
 Each of these sections would be brief. The 'Right To Repair' section would introduce the issue, link to a couple of relevant articles for examples ('John Deere fails to uphold right to repair agreement' &  'Future Motion Onewheel skateboard...'), and link to a dedicated 'Right To Repair' page.
@@ Line 136: / Line 136: @@
 Suggestions:
-* Put 'main page' at the top, followed by 'All Pages', then 'Categories', then the other links below those.
+*Put 'main page' at the top, followed by 'All Pages', then 'Categories', then the other links below those.
-* Add a 'Consumer Rights' navigation box with the 'R2R', Right to Privacy, and dedicated-page links that I've suggested in the ToC section above.
+*Add a 'Consumer Rights' navigation box with the 'R2R', Right to Privacy, and dedicated-page links that I've suggested in the ToC section above.
 +(added by Cire)+ On mobile navigation is clunky and there's no hyperlink or similar from the main page to the All pages search section. Mobile formats are what people will have all the time. Imagine if this wiki could be an app (or shortcut) on mobile and can be as easily referenced as one would a shoping list texted to you.
 [[User:ReedyBear|ReedyBear]] 22:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
-== Relevant biographical data ==
+==Relevant biographical data==
 This is in regards to companies and organizations. The information included about describing them should be info that supports CAT efforts. One point in particular is information that establishes a chain of responsibility for that company or organization so as to give consumers a pathway to approach problems with those most responsible for a policy or condition arising. For example the company info box I added a line item to identify if they are a public or privately held company, which would be information to establish who is responsible for the company's activities.
@@ Line 148: / Line 148: @@
 In the case of an organization such as government agencies or commissions, where that organization derives its authority from would also establish how to address its behavior. It doesn't need to be a history lesson, just the point of its inception and under what conditions it was allowed to be made, such as what specific law or action established it. [[User:MadMallard|MadMallard]] ([[User talk:MadMallard|talk]]) 09:33, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
-== Scope: are intentionally habit forming products in scope? ==
+==Scope: are intentionally habit forming products in scope?==
 What about habit forming products?  Do they fall within wiki scope, or out of scope, or borderline?
@@ Line 163: / Line 163: @@
 [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 16:43, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
+:Dark patterns are in scope - Gambling in video games or anything digital can probably work as they are used in articles, but I don’t think you can  base a whole article on it. Really doubt betting at all though, but if it is very hard to cancel some random subscription you have to do?? it might be worth mentioning. I think the [[project:Inclusion guidelines|Inclusion guidelines]] help a bit more as scope is its purpose.
+:darn, i wrote an essay [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|<i><b>AnotherConsumerRightsPerson</b></i>]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 05:32, 27 September 2025 (UTC)