Jump to content
Main menu
Main menu
move to sidebar
hide
Navigation
Main page
Categories
Random page
Top Contributors
Recent changes
Contribute
Create a page
How to help
Wiki policy
Adapt videos to articles
Articles in need of work
Help
Frequently asked questions
Join the discord!
Help about MediaWiki
Consumer_Action_Taskforce
Search
Search
Appearance
Create account
Log in
Personal tools
Create account
Log in
Pages for logged out editors
learn more
Contributions
Talk
Editing
Consumer Action Taskforce talk:Editorial guidelines
Add topic
Project page
Discussion
English
Read
Edit source
View history
Tools
Tools
move to sidebar
hide
Actions
Read
Edit source
Add topic
View history
Purge cache
General
What links here
Related changes
Special pages
Page information
Cargo data
Appearance
move to sidebar
hide
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
== Downside of alternative products being out of scope == The risk that companies will astroturf the wiki with product recommendations is a very real concern. I wonder if there's a balance though that can prevent astroturfing while keeping consumers informed. The very first thing a consumer will think when reading any of these anti-consumer stories is "alright well how can I avoid this?". It's easy in some cases. If I search "repairable laptop" or "repairable phone" then I get earnest & valuable results. If I search "3d printer without cloud services", then all I get are articles, videos, and Reddit posts about the controversy of the 3D printer manufacturer who is further leaning into cloud services & none of the 3D printers without cloud integration that I know of as a hobbyist 3D printer. Astroturfing is also a huge issue outside of the wiki: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnA08Wwh9v4 it's routine] for even reviewing websites & journalist websites that were once reputable to have "10 best X" guides that are just full of product placement from the highest bidder. Even as a power user, I have sometimes spent weeks tracking down reputable alternatives for hardware / software, carefully avoiding obscure ads that would trick the layman, let alone how difficult it would be for the average consumer. The wiki mission is to provide consumers "information they need to recognize and fight back against new forms of exploitation", but if all we do is give examples of anti-consumer behavior without the information necessary to locate alternatives that do respect their rights as consumers, are we truly providing them the information they need to fight back against consumer exploitation? I don't think it will be easy, but I wonder if it's viable to rectify this in at least a narrow facet by relying on a small group of known, trusted (in the same way as moderators) domain experts to curate peer-reviewed alternatives with extensive & reproducible/verifiable testing (e.g. sniffing traffic to make sure a "LAN-only" device isn't phoning home). And probably not on specific company pages, but on broader "Laptops", "Mobile Phones", "3D printers", pages. [[User:DrewW]] ([[User talk:DrewW|talk]]) 07:33, 19 January 2025 (UTC) == This page needs at least one category == Maybe [[:Category:CAT]]? [[User:Waldo|Waldo]] ([[User talk:Waldo|talk]]) 07:48, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Summary:
Please note that all contributions to Consumer_Action_Taskforce are considered to be released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (see
Consumer Action Taskforce:Copyrights
for details). If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource.
Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!
To protect the wiki against automated edit spam, we kindly ask you to solve the following hCaptcha:
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)