Please note that all submissions to the site are subject to the wiki's licence, CC 4.0 BY-SA, as found here
Talk:Microsoft: Difference between revisions
From Consumer Action Taskforce
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
: Any ideas on how to tone the rest of the page down? I know we'd need to get the attention of the "dark patterns" author to know the intent before we clean that section up. [[User:JamesTDG|JamesTDG]] ([[User talk:JamesTDG|talk]]) 16:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | : Any ideas on how to tone the rest of the page down? I know we'd need to get the attention of the "dark patterns" author to know the intent before we clean that section up. [[User:JamesTDG|JamesTDG]] ([[User talk:JamesTDG|talk]]) 16:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
== Dark patterns section == | |||
Is it even worth keeping tbh, I was looking for sources and its a barely talked about topic, could just be worth scrapping altogether even after I fixed some of the language. | |||
: Perhaps remove most of the text from this page, and spin it out as a stub incident page? | |||
Latest revision as of 10:05, 18 January 2025
I cannot deny, the "dark patterns" section definitely feels a bit inflammatory, though I'm curious to know if other seconds are a bit inflammatory JamesTDG (talk) 15:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Agree, I added the ToneWarning because the whole page seemed 'off' -Keith
- Any ideas on how to tone the rest of the page down? I know we'd need to get the attention of the "dark patterns" author to know the intent before we clean that section up. JamesTDG (talk) 16:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Dark patterns section[edit source]
Is it even worth keeping tbh, I was looking for sources and its a barely talked about topic, could just be worth scrapping altogether even after I fixed some of the language.
- Perhaps remove most of the text from this page, and spin it out as a stub incident page?
