This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. stateofCalifornia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
the history of this article speaks for itself. it's not very often where an article is blatently modified by the company as is done in this one. would be nice if they would follow wiki courtesy and note what they are doing instead of just editing the article based on how they feel it should look.
I didn't nominate it however I did remove alot of what was PR. Wiki articles that have a topic of controversy don't also contain the companies response. The companies response should be made to those disputing it.
I agree with everything you have said, except for the removal of the timeline. If done properly, a timeline presents information in a form easily utilized and compared. I did not see this particular timeline, and I don't doubt that it needed modification, but I intend to take a look at the history, and see if it is worth exhuming. In concept, a timeline is certainly not un-encyclopedic, and I believe they are used in other articles. What do others think? If there are more than a few watching this article, they are certainly quiet. Rags (talk) 07:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Undid this edit:[1]. The cited source, from the Bang College of Business in Kazakhstan, doesn't say anything about a『risk assessment of a client’s business and privacy practices to determine how that client collects, uses and shares personal data.』The paper actually says "The process to obtain their privacy seals relies heavily on self assessments." (It also gives TrustE's price for a seal: $6500.) In any case, that source is mostly repeating some content from a book published in France, which describes TrustE as a nonprofit. (It went for-profit years ago.) So that's no longer valid info. --John Nagle (talk) 18:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Found an excessive amount of reliance on press releases. Tried to clean up much of the promotional language and copy. This is a borderline advertisement. Most of what would be reliable sourcing links are broken. Thought about putting it in the AFD discussion, but the company does have a lot of coverage by third-party sources. Could still use a lot of cleanup. EBstrunk18 (talk) 20:06, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the tag, because at this point, the article contains a lot of negative information. From what is in the article, I certainly would not depend upon TRUSTe. Comfr (talk) 20:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is an excessive amount of self-promotion here and heavy reliance on press-releases. I recommend this article be referred to an AFD discussion. 76.19.81.220 (talk) 16:20, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion is about notability, not article quality. TRUSTe is notable. The article isn't that great. You can try improving it. --John Nagle (talk) 23:31, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree about the self-promotion problems -- this article requires continuous monitoring to maintain standards. That said, I think this article exemplifies one of the most important functions of an encyclopedia, and of en.WP in particular. I came to this article for useful information on the role of TRUSTe and its integrity, and that's exactly what I found. The company is certainly notable, if misguided. The study by the Harvard prof is particularly enlightening. I can't speak to the quality of the information before Mr. Nagle and others worked on it, but articles like this are critical to an informed public. The TRUSTe trust mark, at this point in time, conveys a false sense of safety that is dangerous, aside from being basicly dishonest. On the other hand, entities thus exposed have been known, in rare instances, to reverse course and serve a useful function. An example would be the Howard Hughes Institute, which began as a simple tax shelter, with reportedly no higher aspirations. Now it is an admirable philanthropy. TRUSTe could be a very useful public-service entity, if they would. Currently they are not, it seems. This is important information. Wikipedia itself is no longer just entertainment for the geeky. The WMF has chosen to shoulder certain responsibilities. If the mantle fits, it should be worn with honor and pride. Rags (talk) 07:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have just added archive links to one external link on TRUSTe. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to trueorfailed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
