Talk:Consumer Watchdog

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Consumer Watchdog (USA))
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Organizations  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Organizations. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Politics  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Requested move[edit]


There has recently been coverage of Consumer Watchdog and their criticism of Google, for, apparently among other things, their privacy policies and dominance in some areas of the technology industry. I'm not sure how significant of a "cause" Google is at this point for this organization, but it could certainly be mentioned if anyone thinks it is important. jæs (talk) 08:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

This so-called "Consumer" company is nothing but a giant realllife sock puppet, it's so obvious and can easily be verified. This NEEDS to be in a Wikipedia article about the company. Jaes, why are you removing anything about this, calling any substantial evidence and proof simply "unreliable sourcing", when everybody can verify it by simply clicking on the embedded links? Also, please refrain of sock puppet calling, I'm not the one strangely protecting some fishy company here, my 2-day block was because of an edit war with an insanely stubborn guy that wouldn't realize he wrote complete BS in his article on C64 programming techniques, which I any many others (who are definarely not sock puppets) just happen to know very, very well. Just because this guy called me a sock puppet does not make it so. -- DeeKay64 (talk) 07:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Looking through the history of the talk page, i saw that you already also removed comments on that topic by another user - whom you also managed to get banned on claims of sock puppetry. Why are you calling anyone raising the topic a sock puppet, trying to get them banned? It's obvious there's something fishy about that company, so whether you believe it or not, there's actually more than one person on the planet trying to get this mentioned on their wiki-article. I had to go through the whole process of ban appeal to get my wiki-account back just because of you, -- DeeKay64 (talk) 12:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
If you have something to add regarding the content you want included in this article, please discuss that on its merits. Enough with the tendentious nonsense. jæs (talk) 18:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

It attacks on google seem noteworthy, particularly with allegations that it is potentially astroturfing. Knowing the be bold policy I've made changes. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I've cut out the unreliable sources, they're not made acceptable simply through bold inclusion. I've also toned down the synthesis and rhetoric. Finally, the "astroturfing" allegations are completely unsubstantiated by reliable sourcing, but the "myth" goes back to an ill-informed blog post that's been bandied about here from time to time that "uncovered" that the company Consumer Watchdog uses for web hosting also has Microsoft as a client. We're not a newswire. If you think Microsoft is using Consumer Watchdog as a front to attack Google, call the media. If there's a shred of evidence, it'll be a big story, and then it can be included in the article and reliably sourced. But we're not Wikipedia Rumors or Wikipedia Investigative Journalism. jæs (talk) 21:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

COI Concerns[edit]

I am trying to address any COI concerns. Thank you for brining this to attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamal Farmer (talkcontribs) 21:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. It isn't terrible, but it does read as a list of the good that Consumer Watchdog has done, rather than being written from a completely neutral point of view. tedder (talk) 21:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Consumer Watchdog. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:26, 12 August 2017 (UTC)