Consumer Rights Wiki talk:Draft policy on the inclusion of positive consumer-focused acts and practices: Difference between revisions

@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 :Can we at least mark positive articles on the CRW? It'd be confusng if someone new just clicked 'Random page' and saw what looked like some promotion. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 14:47, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
+:I have a few thoughts as a more casual editor, I hope they're helpful
+:* On the EA Command and Conquer example, releasing source code is often suggested as a way to preserve games after their online servers have shut down.  The original online servers are long gone for C&C, so I'd argue that example could belong here.  (I'd agree it doesn't belong here if it's a purely offline game however)
+:* Requiring at least two incidents for a company to have an article seems unnecessary.  It creates the odd situation where a positive incident can have an article, but the company itself cannot.  (In those situations it seems better to just have the incident detailed on the company page?).
+:* On non profits,  GrapheneOS seems like an example of one that ''does'' belong here, because the organisation tends to be quite vocal about privacy and other rights.
+:[[User:RobotToaster|RobotToaster]] ([[User talk:RobotToaster|talk]]) 14:47, 15 June 2026 (UTC)