Talk:Ripoff Report

Archives (Index)

2011 2012 2013 2014 2016 2021

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Ripoff Report should not be a legal source for this article

First of all, Ripoff Report used to claim that "you can write whatever you want because we are protected by the First Amendment": false. Then the narration became "We cannot and will not dissolve the First Amendment rights of our users based on a unilateral allegation that something in a report is false". False: any court, "based on a unilateral allegation", can carry out the checks requested. Nor is it guaranteed that "the affected party is informed of the request so he/she can take steps to protect their privacy". Moreover, the long "series of steps" described by Ripoff Report, such as "1. Post a notice as a rebuttal to each report" are just fluff and there is no legal obligation to follow Ripoff Report's "steps". In other words, using that page as a source is equivalent to advertising the website. --151.19.78.188 (talk) 09:49, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I'd have to agree that the disputed paragraph looks questionable. The only source cited is the website itself, making what appear to be self-serving claims as regard to the law. Content on such matters should be independently sourced. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:01, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

The article states that it is a claim, which I believe is notable when talking about the site. The actual legal argument is much more complex - indeed (from memory) the claim itself has been a point of argument in law. There is an issue with WP:SELFSOURCE perhaps. Shritwod (talk) 12:48, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to see a clear explanation as to why the paragraph is needed at all. Why is it necessary to involve ourselves in trying to summarise this particular content from the website? If this is significant, it needs to be demonstrated through secondary sourcing - in which case we can report what such secondary sources say about it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:03, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

It ties in with the Legal actions section IMO. Not saying that it couldn't do with a rewrite though, but nonetheless I don't think it's valid to remove the section on the basis stated above. Shritwod (talk) 16:00, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

The Legal Actions section, along with the rest of the article, suffers from similar sourcing problems: citing the website itself, along with primary-source court records, and at least one blog. The article probably needs rewriting from scratch, based almost exclusively on what appropriate secondary reliable sources have to say on the subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:17, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

"it is a claim, which I believe is notable"
Precisely because it is just a claim — one of the zillions of "claims" made in that website — and not a fact, it is completely useless in a section named "Reports and rebuttals", where a description of how their reports-rebuttals work is more than enough. There is no need to "clarify" (as the paragraph says) the legal loopholes that the website claims to exploit, simply because the "clarification" comes from an unreliable and biased legal source. --151.57.51.151 (talk) 10:48, 23 August 2022 (UTC)