Talk:NetBlocks
Latest comment: 2 years ago by OliverHargreaves in topic Criticism vs Reception
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Criticism vs Reception
editHi @NoonIcarus, can you explain why you switched the section header from Criticism to Reception? I read through Wikipedia:Criticism#Approaches_to_presenting_criticism and it seems to me that Criticism would be more appropriate for the current contents of the section. Legoktm (talk) 03:38, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Legoktm: Hi! Thanks for the message, gladly! I added the title mostly because WP:CRITS states that sections focused only in negative criticism are discouraged; moreover, the second paragraph appears to consist mostly in a dispute over one of NetBlocks' report and not criticism towards the organization per se. I also believe that the section could use further positive feedback. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:31, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Legoktm The Reception section appears to be based entirely anonymous claims and hearsay and doesn't add much value to the article. In general, I tend to agree with @NoonIcarus that the article needs more positive treatment to reflect the organization's work using reliable sources. The sections about a mailing list are unclear, and it's not obvious what significance is attributed to these discussions, or why that mailing list is relevant. OliverHargreaves (talk) 08:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- I agree that the level of detail in the (now deleted) reception/criticism section was inappropriate relative to the subject, but a one-liner summarizing the fact that there has been conflict might not be amiss. Bill Woodcock (talk) 08:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for the comment Bill. A one liner could work but there’s little information about the person who squatted the five internet domains. The WIPO judgement implies that person is a U.S. federal government employee and per D2020-2240 the case revolved around anti-competitive conduct targeting NetBlocks, with the domains squatted in bad faith for use as bargaining chips. In any case, coverage of legal proceedings should follow Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Legal. From a quick search I can see that the case has been cited as a benchmark for "bad faith" in two later tribunals, which would make it notable per the guideline. OliverHargreaves (talk) 09:59, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- I agree that the level of detail in the (now deleted) reception/criticism section was inappropriate relative to the subject, but a one-liner summarizing the fact that there has been conflict might not be amiss. Bill Woodcock (talk) 08:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Legoktm The Reception section appears to be based entirely anonymous claims and hearsay and doesn't add much value to the article. In general, I tend to agree with @NoonIcarus that the article needs more positive treatment to reflect the organization's work using reliable sources. The sections about a mailing list are unclear, and it's not obvious what significance is attributed to these discussions, or why that mailing list is relevant. OliverHargreaves (talk) 08:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)