Talk:Chilling effect (disambiguation)/Archive 1

Bias / NPOV / Criticism

The article needs to reflect the following major criticism. Although ChillingEffects (CE) makes a big point of trying to protect "lawful online activity", in fact its database Chilling Effects Clearinghouse also lists cease and desist notices that target unambiguously UNLAWFUL activity too. This process is aided and abetted by Google who appear to, as a matter of policy, pass C&D notices to CE for publication regardless of their merit. CE in effect is creating a "back chill" – i.e. anyone who dares protest about their Intellectual Property being stolen will be publicly (the anonymisation efforts are pathetic, by the way) named on a site that “aims to support lawful online activity against the chill of unwarranted legal threats.”

If you've got nothing to hide, why is this a problem? Transparency is always a good thing. 24.16.241.113 (talk) 10:23, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Re: "why is this a problem" - well, untrue statements may effect a business' reputation. Remember the database is supposed to be a list of "unwarranted" legal threats. That's where the problem lies. I'm not an expert on corporate libel but I'd imagine unfairly accusing a company of IP harassment would be considered unlawful in some jurisdictions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.144.198.229 (talk) 22:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation

It might be of interest to name this article "Chilling effect (disambiguation)" rather than simply "Chilling effect" to increase conformity. This is not necessary, but it can be used to reduce naming confusion; as this is a disambiguation page. ChyranandChloe (talk) 18:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Once we have done that, we can discuss which page "Chilling effect" should link to: the disambiguation page, or the page Chilling effect (term). I have not looked through all these articles, but it seems to me that most of them mean the term. --Austrian (talk) 20:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd just say keep it simple and leave it as is. Cirt (talk) 20:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The page should remain here. In June, the dab page was viewed almost 5,000 times, the "(term)" article was viewed about 4,000 times, the "(group)" article some 4,200 times and "Wind chill" was viewed 9,500 times. There is clearly no primary topic here, and therefore, the dab page should remain at the undisambiguated space. To see why moving the dab page for the sake of naming conformity is a bad idea, see WP:MDP (note that if the page is moved and the redirect remains pointed to the dab page, it will simply be reversed the next time the database updates by myself or one of the other admins who patrol WP:MDP.) Parsecboy (talk) 21:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Austrian, the move was over a year ago; there's no "back-and-forth moving", at least not in recent memory. Even if most of the link were referring to the term, it would only be an inconvenience to make a second click. ChyranandChloe (talk) 02:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

My take on the situation is this: There is only one thing called "chilling effect" about which we have an article. That makes the primary topic question moot - there is only one topic corresponding to the title of this article. "Chilling Effects" is distinguished by being plural and proper, and "wind chill" has its own name. It seems unlikely to me that "chilling effect" will be a common search term for people seeking information about Chilling Effects or about wind chill, no matter how many hits those pages receive. How many of those hits come via a search for "chilling effect"?

A hatnote can easily handle the disambiguation, so there's no need to have a separate dab page. It's not a big deal either way, but that's how I see it. Thanks, Austrian, for the note informing me of this discussion. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to these moves: Dec 2007, Dec 2007 and July 2008. True, they are not recent.

Thank you, Parsecboy, for the usage statistics links.

I still think that the term is the "primary topic". The group Chilling Effects is named after the term, and the article about wind chill barely mentions the term "chilling effect". Also, it is not at all clear what the 5000 visitors of this article were looking for, and how many of them were robots. Those who came from within wikipedia were almost certainly looking for the term: I randomly selected 20 of the "what links here" pages (ignoring those going through "chilling effects" with the plural ending), and all of them meant to link to the term. So it is unclear what the readers means when they look for "chilling effect", but the editors usually mean the term.

Anyway, as it seems we will not get a consensus here.

--Austrian (talk) 16:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see that it's so unlikely to get a consensus. There's simply no need for this disambiguation page, per WP:DAB. There is only one topic for the title, the title is not a likely search term for similarly named topics, usage stats do not establish otherwise, and disambiguation is covered by a hatnote in similar cases all over the wiki. What remaining argument is there for a separate dab page? -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Chilling effect (law) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:28, 9 July 2013 (UTC)