Talk:Quad9

This article was copy edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

Please add {{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Computing: Networking / Security C‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by Networking task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

This article is supported by WikiProject Computer Security (assessed as High-importance).

Things you can help WikiProject Computer Security with:

Article alerts will be generated shortly by AAlertBot. Please allow some days for processing. More information...

Answer question about Same-origin_policy
Review importance and quality of existing articles
Identify categories related to Computer Security
Tag related articles
Identify articles for creation (see also: Article requests)
Identify articles for improvement
Create the Project Navigation Box including lists of adopted articles, requested articles, reviewed articles, etc.
Find editors who have shown interest in this subject and ask them to take a look here.

Advert flag

@DavidCWG: noting the Advert flag you've placed on the Quad9 article and recognizing that it still needs a lot of improvement, I put a little time into trying to improve it a couple of weeks ago and would be willing to do more... Are there specific things you can point to for additional attention? EVhotrodder (talk) 08:15, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To me the article still reads like it was written by the organization, the tone is not impartial and it relies too much on primary sources and self-published blogs. 31.209.215.159 (talk) 08:35, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't quoted anything from Quad9's blog, and I think the sentence you deleted was one I wrote; perhaps we have different interpretations of "self-published?" By "self" do you mean the publisher? That would be tautological. I believe I've addressed DavidCWG's concerns to his satisfaction. Can you be more specific about how you think the article can be improved? EVhotrodder (talk) 14:34, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the homepage commented out?

@EVhotrodder: I was confused as to why there was no homepage linked in the infobox, and even more confused after discovering that there was one but that it was commented out. I see that you did the same with the founding date, only to later uncomment it once you had a source to cite related to it. I'm not familiar enough with Wikipedia norms to know, so I wonder: is it common practice to require a source for such a basic piece of information? Perhaps I have incorrectly assumed why you left the homepage commented out. --Firvqipo (talk) 11:02, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Firvqipo: I honestly don't remember. I remember grabbing the verbose non-profit infobox template and working through it when I found applicable information to fit the different entries. Perhaps I was worried about duplication between that and the External Links section? Anyway, I've un-commented it now. EVhotrodder (talk) 11:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality issues and some sources needed

> It is the only global public resolver which is operated not-for-profit, in the public benefit.

Source needed. And it's contradicted by OpenNIC's existence anyway.

> Quad9 is currently the only global recursive resolver which is not subject to United States law, as the others are each domiciled in the San Francisco Bay Area and governed by the Northern District of California US Federal Court.[3][4]

Source needed. It's likely false, are really all the other global recursive resolvers domiciled in California or the US?

--Tuxayo (talk) 17:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]