Talk:FreeWill

Title change

Title should have capital W, as used by the company, FreeWill. I don't know how to do that, so I hope someone else will. Numbersinstitute (talk) 23:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Dispute resolution process of the company

On 2020-04-28, @‎RJaguar3 deleted the dispute resolution section, citing "WP:UNDUE/WP:NPOV/WP:OR section cited to an article that doesn't mention FreeWill and primary sources)."

• WP:UNDUE standard is "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources" The text only reported the company's published dispute resolution process. I am not aware of any reliable source which disagrees with what was stated. If so, it can be added.
• WP:NPOV standard "means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." The text did so.
• WP:OR standard means "all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source" Text was attributed.
• WP:PRIMARY standard is "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." The text was purely factual. If there is any ambiguity, it could be discussed here. Otherwise I'd revert.

RJaguar3 similarly deleted arbitration section from Pixel 3 article, though it had already been discussed on that Talk page. Numbersinstitute (talk) 16:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

The wording which was deleted was:

• FreeWill, like many software companies, disclaims liability for errors and omissions in their software. If people nevertheless have disputes with the company, the company requires them to use individual arbitration in New York City under "Commercial Arbitration Rules that contemplate in-person hearings." Numbersinstitute (talk) 19:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

There was further discussion on Talk:Pixel 3. @RJaguar3: commented that an RFC at Talk:Dollar Shave Club#Arbitration clause RFC found discussion of arbitration in the Dollar Shave Club article failed WP:UNDUE. That RFC was 4 years ago and is not a wikipedia policy. The text about Dollar Shave Club was not as specific as the text about FreeWill; DSC text just said customers could not sue or use class actions, and did not say what they could do. Further, DSC text was not neutral, since it included criticism of arbitration, without statements in support of arbitration, which certainly exist, such as reduced cost and burden on the courts. I agree general controversy over arbitration does not need to be mentioned in each article, but each company's chosen approach to arbitration is important to include, so readers can understand where the company positions itself in the overall continuum. Arbitration clauses are widespread, but not universal, and the contents vary. The text here describes this clause as requiring commercial arbitration with in-person hearings, which is not a universal approach even among arbitration clauses.

Other articles also have material not covered by secondary sources, but which the page editors find significant: bonus rounds, Equifax TOS, and auditions. There is nothing special about dispute resolution which says its implementation by each company is insignificant. Quite the opposite. The wide variation shows that companies take different approaches and change them significantly over time, just as they do with bonus rounds and auditions. It is possible to make the text more positive and simpler:

• FreeWill, like many software companies, disclaims liability for errors and omissions in their software; they also note that laws change rapidly. If people nevertheless have disputes with the company, the users and company agree to use individual arbitration in New York City under "Commercial Arbitration Rules that contemplate in-person hearings." Numbersinstitute (talk) 02:59, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

References