Talk:Rightscorp

Criticism is not vandalism

Wikipedia is not an advertisement for a company and posting documented evidence is not vandalism. The criticism is documented and people have a right to information which is completely verifiable and not remotely vandalism.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.88.12.178) (talk • contribs) 18:52, 12 May 2014‎ (UTC)

Request for comment

Submitted a request to have a comment placed on this page due to the constant labeling of edits as vandalism: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Request board#Rightscorp editor continuously removing good faith comments on criticism and labeling good faith efforts as vandalism

The editor pointed out that "extortion" was not used in the actual articles other than the comment sections, so that was understandably removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxbarking (talk • contribs) 23:40, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

"If you get contacted by Rightscorp Inc." section

This advice section keeps getting added back into the article.[1] I've reverted it twice, but I don't want to break WP:3RR over this, so I'm explaining my reversions here in the hopes of convincing the IPs to remove the section themselves, or explain how the text is allowed under Wikipedia policies. In my view, the policy violations are pretty clear. First of all, the section is unsourced, which means the content violates one of Wikipedia's core content policies, Verifiability. Secondly, Wikipedia is not intended as an advice column or how-to manual. It really should be removed for good. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 17:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@Dawn Bard: Hi Dawn. Completely agree. And the lack of explanation by the various IP editors is troubling. At this point, I'm treating it as vandalism, and just issued a level 1 warning. I think that's the only way to handle this issue.Onel5969 (talk) 16:20, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

@Onel5969: Thanks! I was initially trying to assume good faith & not treat it as vandalism, hence my concerns above about 3RR, but there comes a point when repeatedly re-adding this content without explanation and despite warnings should be treated as vandalism, and I agree with you that we are past that point. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 16:25, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, regarding this[2] version of the edit, thank you @77.93.210.93: for at least attempting to source the content. I've reverted it because the sources (blogs, reddit) are not considered reliable, and because, as I mentioned just above, the content violates WP:NOTADVICE. Please discuss here instead of continuing the edit warring. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 16:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Press releases

Currently, this article relies too much on press releases. They are published in third-party publications, but are mostly written by the company itself. Exapmles:

• "Copyright Monetization Company Rightscorp Completes Going Public Transaction"
• "Rightscorp Increases Representation to Surpass 1.5 Million Copyrights".
• "Rightscorp Expands Representation in Film and Video Market".
• "Rightscorp Begins Monitoring 14 Film Titles That Grossed Over $3.5 Billion in Sales".
• "Rightscorp Joins American Association of Independent Music (A2IM)".
• ...and others.

Some press releases are ok, but we should try to rely on third-party sources more heavily, as described in WP:THIRDPARTY. Forbes72 (talk) 03:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I've gone ahead clearly marked the articles as press releases and pointed the urls to the original Newswire sources. I've changed a few of them for third-party sources, but more work needs to be done to improve sourcing here. Forbes72 (talk) 01:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rightscorp, Inc.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.kutv.com/news/features/gephardt/stories/vid_62.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)