Jump to content

Talk:Digital Citizens Alliance

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

Page created

[edit]

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)[reply]

Removal of astroturfing content

[edit]

User:Justincauses, please can you give rationale why you keep removing this content https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Digital_Citizens_Alliance&curid=43860144&diff=627285570&oldid=627285480 Deku-shrub (talk) 19:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Staff and advisory positions done!

[edit]

What a surprise, nearly all linked to intellectual property or other lobbying organisations! Deku-shrub (talk) 22:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Attack page

[edit]

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)[reply]

It's impossible to describe an astroturfing type organisation neutrally because they are inherently duplicitous. I'll try and come up with some compromises Deku-shrub (talk) 11:08, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed a lot of this content for sourcing and POV issues. If you can find reliable sources for the description, or for specific instances of conflict of interest, advocacy, being an industry shill, etc., please add them. That's not to say they are anything but astroturf, only that we don't have strong enough sources for Wikipedia to be saying that. Sourcing these claims to opinion pieces, blogs, etc., doesn't work. If they are seriously astroturfing, and if they are notable, this will come out sooner or later. If not, we can't be a platform for trying to expose an organization if the sources have not already done so. Or else, perhaps the group simply isn't that notable. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:41, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"We can't be a platform for trying to expose an organization if the sources have not already done so" - but that's exactly what I've done, without synthesis as well. Deku-shrub (talk) 11:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page insufficiently critical

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Given the article's history and that the discussion and edit-history is predominantly in the opposite direction, I think it is best to approach it the opposite way around, discussing edits before implementing them. CorporateM (Talk) 01:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Right, so my goal is to illustrate the DCA are a astroturfing lobbyist organisation, rather than an educational non-profit which they claim to be, but are not. I feel the extensive citations I put in achieves this, especially in the light of the latest leaks, New York times and Google references about this. I like my previous revision with everything, I feel there's no need to fight over every cite when it paints a picture more effectively as a whole Deku-shrub (talk) 01:22, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The unfortunate thing about front groups is that it's rare that a strong source explicitly defines an organization as such and they are usually slippery enough to make it hard for the press to pin them down. For example, The New York Times doesn't actually say it's a front group (a more precise label than astroturfing), but that one of its lobbyists was acting with a conflict of interest. That's something worth adding being careful to state only what is directly supported by the source. CorporateM (Talk) 02:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One of their lobbyists has a conflict of interest? I went through every staff member and the only one I found not to have have conflict of interest was perhaps Sally Greenberg. I understand the article must not open with 'DCA is a front group for...' but is it not fair to list the notable occasions that they have been described as such, the latest 'Criticism' section? Seriously, the criticism of the group is more notable than the group itself Deku-shrub (talk) 10:51, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What you're describing (going through their staff list and assessing whether they have a conflict of interest) is original research. You may be right, but we need a credible, independent source like The New York Times to make that assessment. CorporateM (Talk) 12:14, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty much what Marvin Ammori claimed but I thought the specifics need clarification so I did so.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I have a very loose relationship with TorrentFreak and in time I could get them to dish the full dirt on DCA, they are currently wading through the Sony Hack documents and this just one story of many. But the thing is ... I am their expert, their sources would be mostly my 'full' version of the page with a narrative tieing it together. Because I'm in the UK this is not of interest to the UK press. I did pass my research to United States Pirate Party with whom I have a relationship but they didn't put together a release on the matter that I'd hope they would do. I've put the 'full' page minus the staff links for now because I do accept they were my kinda my original research, despite being cited from valid sources Deku-shrub (talk) 22:53, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with Torrentfreak?

[edit]

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)[reply]

A search of the Reliable Sources Noticeboard suggests there are different perspectives within the community over whether it is reliable or not, suggesting it may be usable in some situations with caution. It sounds like some of their posts are written by dedicated staff and some are written by bloggers? It might be best to share a specific (just one) torrentfreak source article you'd like to use so we can check out who the author is and go from there. CorporateM (Talk) 19:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A vast majority of their articles are from their 2x main staff Andy and Ernesto, with regular columns from Rick Falkvinge. Actual guest contributions are very few Deku-shrub (talk) 15:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok - their About Us page does say 99% of the articles are written by the two founders and the description does not read like their editorial mission is advocacy. Loooks like a good enough source to me. CorporateM (Talk) 00:43, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

[edit]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Digital_Citizens_Alliance&oldid=1016377288"