Talk:Content protection network

Orphan

Removed the "orphan" tag, since two other articles do link to Content protection network. Is there a standard threshold for when an "orphan" tag may (or should) be removed? -- Swiss Mister in NY (talk) 12:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality tag

Regarding the neutrality tag: the article is written from the point of view that scraping is an unethical activity, to the point that it calls it "malicious and intentional content theft" in Wikipedia's voice. Wikipedia is expected to cover all perspectives regarding controversial topics and be written using an WP:IMPARTIAL tone. Issues like the CDs with errors in them were highly criticized, even being said that they didn't match the CD recording standard because of that, but this isn't mentioned in the article.

The article could be improved by adding sources that cover such criticism, and by including the opinions of groups that hold a different perspective with respect to copyright. Diego (talk) 18:19, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, you are contending that taking another website's copyrighted material for the purposes of publishing it without permission on one's own website needs to be "cited" as unethical? Might I suggest that since yours appears to be the only complaint about the point of view, that perhaps you try to improve the article yourself by adding more sources that cover criticism of content protection networks, and then if you still feel that the article lacks the appropriate balance, then you add the tag back to the article? Prelude after noon (talk) 17:07, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All information in Wikipedia needs to have the potential to be cited, controversial information in particular; that's basic verifiability policy. I'll give a try at reworking the worst parts with respect to the neutral point of view. Diego (talk) 23:03, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]