Jump to content

Talk:Badoo

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lucspook (talk | contribs) at 14:33, 7 April 2014 (→‎WP:NPOV). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Automatic IP blocking of users trying to delete profiles

The Badoo staff is clever: first the whole "someone sent you a message", using a profile made of information illegally (and I know my consumer and privacy law) harvested on other social networks and then used on their website, and when you follow that link (I had to, because the concerned person recently started suffering from social isolation and could end up in depression) it creates a "profile" automatically. Hopefully, I only gave them fake info and a fake picture.

This is where it gets really funny: you "can" delete a profile, but for that you need your password. To get your password, you need to request it first. When you request it, after going in the account deletion menu, they immediately flag your account as "suspicious" and block your IP from the entire website.

I just tried it with junk email addresses and other Internet lines (= so different IPs) here, and am able to reproduce it. Same with proxies. It's not the cache nor the cookies (tried clearing the cache, using other browsers, other devices on the same fixed-IP line).

 --88.177.158.231 (talk) 22:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]


WP:NPOV

There have been various edits to revert the page to reflect some strong feelings about Badoo. These edits are not in line with WP:NPOV which must be considered when editing.

Many of the sources used as citations for these views are old personal blogs or dated consumer complaints.

Badoo has faced criticism, that is indisputable, but it must be presented from a neutral point of view and weight given in accordance with the reliability of the source materials. Please see WP:RS.

Lucspook (talk) 07:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the edits you made today. I reverted them: please see the edit summary I provided. Good point about the blogs and whatnot, though. I therefore subsequently edited the page to remove some personal blogs and other apparent non-RSes and the article text which they were used to back. If you feel that the article still cites any non-RSes, please say so and send me a {{talkback}} template. If I correctly understand the WP:OR policy, your point cited to the Data Protection Commissioner website is OR and forbidden on Wikipedia. If you believe I incorrectly understand the policy, please say so. Cheers! —Unforgettableid (talk) 20:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just to address the Data Protection website reference for now, I have studied WP:NOR and the reference to the UK Data Protection Commission and this reference is not in breach. It is a primary source - that is true - and so should be treated with caution, without interpretation or analysis.
The UK Data Protection Commission is highly relevant in this context as they are the national data protection regulator and therefore regulates Badoo's data practice. There is no interpretation of the source, just a statement of fact.
"There have been no recorded complaints to the UK Data Protection Commissioner."
I will refer back to you on the other issues in due course.
Lucspook (talk) 14:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]