Talk:Mission statement: Difference between revisions

← Older edit Newer edit →

VisualWikitext

Add topic

@@ Line 28: / Line 28: @@
 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.
+: 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 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.
+: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)