This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I discovered the DCA when notorious copyright maximalist and industry shill Andrew Orlowski covered their recent report on cyberlockers. I'm disgusted at the blantant astroturfing the organisation does and I'm glad we can provide a more factual description of their activities here Deku-shrub ( talk) 18:33, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
User:Justincauses, please can you give rationale why you keep removing this content https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Digital_Citizens_Alliance&curid=43860144&diff=627285570&oldid=627285480 Deku-shrub ( talk) 19:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
What a surprise, nearly all linked to intellectual property or other lobbying organisations! Deku-shrub ( talk) 22:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
When I found this article earlier today, it appeared to be functioning as an attack page. I made edits which attempt to address that issue. Schematica ( talk) 06:45, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Hey, so I worked hard building a comprehensive page linking this non-profit to its funding sources in the pharmasuitical, copyright and software industries only to have the work characterised as an attack page.
I'm afraid DCA are in the news yet again with their links to Jim Hood and Mike Moore who's emails outed in the Sony Pictures Entertainment hack has had his lobbying efforts exposed along with the DCA.
I'm merging back my old revision and merging this new info in. As this is now breaking news, please don't revert without some discussion here plzkthx Deku-shrub ( talk) 22:39, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
There is a rebuttal from DCA, but my point being is that this is a highly contested area right now http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-galvin/sorry-google-this-isnt-ab_b_6355166.html Deku-shrub ( talk) 23:08, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Two of DCA's three staff members are employees of the DC public relations firm, 463 Communications (Tom Galvin and Dan Palumbo), and the other is also in PR. That is not the makeup of, say, the ACLU, EFF, or Consumers Union, or a legitimate consumer group. The alliance's advisory board includes someone from the Alliance for Competitive Technology, an organization that receives over a million dollars from Microsoft every year
Look, let's say that the staff-by-staff analysis is original research - I still feel the rest of the article is strong even without that section Deku-shrub ( talk) 15:30, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
This post appears to be a blog that is not written by the publication's editorial staff. Also, considering the author discloses a conflict of interest with Google (the main target of this organization), I don't think it is much more reliable than an op-ed. I would suggest taking it one step at a time. The New York Times is obviously reliable and at the least we should add that source. I think the press is often so overwhelmed by people pitching them promotional stories, a dubious organization that wants to avoid the limelight often does not get very good source material. It would be a public service if you could convince some press to cover them and other front groups in actual investigative stories, rather than just repeating their press releases and reports; at which point we could provide better coverage on Wikipedia. CorporateM ( Talk) 16:27, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Any evidence TorrentFreak is not reliable? They're incredibly well informed and connected in their area of file sharing news, second to none whatsoever. Many major publications cite them as a primary source on such matters and internet piracy lobbying falls squarely within their remit. Deku-shrub ( talk) 16:04, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Deku. If there's any reasonable way to do it, I think we should avoid having a dedicated section for the controversy, per WP:CRITICISM. I couldn't think of any reasonable title to consolidate the sections under though.
It's hard to figure out what an NPOV article looks like when there is so little source material available, but I think we can trim the Reports section further and make the page a stub with just 3 paragraphs, similar to Brilliant Earth. CorporateM ( Talk) 21:20, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I discovered the DCA when notorious copyright maximalist and industry shill Andrew Orlowski covered their recent report on cyberlockers. I'm disgusted at the blantant astroturfing the organisation does and I'm glad we can provide a more factual description of their activities here Deku-shrub ( talk) 18:33, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
User:Justincauses, please can you give rationale why you keep removing this content https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Digital_Citizens_Alliance&curid=43860144&diff=627285570&oldid=627285480 Deku-shrub ( talk) 19:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
What a surprise, nearly all linked to intellectual property or other lobbying organisations! Deku-shrub ( talk) 22:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
When I found this article earlier today, it appeared to be functioning as an attack page. I made edits which attempt to address that issue. Schematica ( talk) 06:45, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Hey, so I worked hard building a comprehensive page linking this non-profit to its funding sources in the pharmasuitical, copyright and software industries only to have the work characterised as an attack page.
I'm afraid DCA are in the news yet again with their links to Jim Hood and Mike Moore who's emails outed in the Sony Pictures Entertainment hack has had his lobbying efforts exposed along with the DCA.
I'm merging back my old revision and merging this new info in. As this is now breaking news, please don't revert without some discussion here plzkthx Deku-shrub ( talk) 22:39, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
There is a rebuttal from DCA, but my point being is that this is a highly contested area right now http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-galvin/sorry-google-this-isnt-ab_b_6355166.html Deku-shrub ( talk) 23:08, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Two of DCA's three staff members are employees of the DC public relations firm, 463 Communications (Tom Galvin and Dan Palumbo), and the other is also in PR. That is not the makeup of, say, the ACLU, EFF, or Consumers Union, or a legitimate consumer group. The alliance's advisory board includes someone from the Alliance for Competitive Technology, an organization that receives over a million dollars from Microsoft every year
Look, let's say that the staff-by-staff analysis is original research - I still feel the rest of the article is strong even without that section Deku-shrub ( talk) 15:30, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
This post appears to be a blog that is not written by the publication's editorial staff. Also, considering the author discloses a conflict of interest with Google (the main target of this organization), I don't think it is much more reliable than an op-ed. I would suggest taking it one step at a time. The New York Times is obviously reliable and at the least we should add that source. I think the press is often so overwhelmed by people pitching them promotional stories, a dubious organization that wants to avoid the limelight often does not get very good source material. It would be a public service if you could convince some press to cover them and other front groups in actual investigative stories, rather than just repeating their press releases and reports; at which point we could provide better coverage on Wikipedia. CorporateM ( Talk) 16:27, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Any evidence TorrentFreak is not reliable? They're incredibly well informed and connected in their area of file sharing news, second to none whatsoever. Many major publications cite them as a primary source on such matters and internet piracy lobbying falls squarely within their remit. Deku-shrub ( talk) 16:04, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Deku. If there's any reasonable way to do it, I think we should avoid having a dedicated section for the controversy, per WP:CRITICISM. I couldn't think of any reasonable title to consolidate the sections under though.
It's hard to figure out what an NPOV article looks like when there is so little source material available, but I think we can trim the Reports section further and make the page a stub with just 3 paragraphs, similar to Brilliant Earth. CorporateM ( Talk) 21:20, 15 July 2015 (UTC)