Consumer Rights Wiki talk:Policy on the inclusion of positive consumer-focused acts and practices

Any thoughts?

What works? What might cause problems further down the line? What's been overlooked? Keith (talk) 13:28, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

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. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 14:47, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

I guess the questions there are:

1) how would we handle mixed articles, and

2) how would we indicate them - a small article notice at the top? Keith (talk) 18:42, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

1) Indicate sections with a tiny 1-line notice

2) A small article notice at the top with a category. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 20:53, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Instead of marking positive articles, you could add a disclaimer template at the top to those that don't contain negative incidents. Something like: "We currently have no consumer rights violations recorded for this organisation, if you are aware of any, please add them."

(I'd love to see that expanded to have a "it has been X days since this company fucked people over" at the top of every organisation, but I imagine that would be a lot more difficult) RobotToaster (talk) 18:17, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

I think this is a fairly good solution, it avoids explicitly marking the article as 'positive' but also gives the reader context to prevent confusion Keith (talk) 23:56, 1 July 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.

RobotToaster (talk) 14:47, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree on graphene - they're also extremely notable and unusual, and probably make sense here .

the two incidents requirement point is probably also valid, and I think it ties into the point @Raster has made below about 'would Wikipedia do it better?' being a better test for whether a company/product page should exist. Keith (talk) 15:17, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

A bit late to the 'party', I feel like there is also the consideration of "would Wikipedia do this page better?" which in my understanding branches to these sub-points:

• Is it something Wikipedia fully covers? Do we have an unique angle towards it? (To my understanding Wikipedia avoids going into the deep end of technical details)
• Do we have enough contributors that are willing to put free time to edit this page into a polished state? (Alternatively, consider the scope)

Other than that, I feel policy's good! I like the "Positive laws" category (thank you to all +cat'ers - I could never!). Raster (talk) 13:40, 16 July 2026 (UTC)