Talk:NetBlocks

Criticism vs Reception

Hi @NoonIcarus, can you explain why you switched the section header from Criticism to Reception? I read through Wikipedia:Criticism#Approaches_to_presenting_criticism and it seems to me that Criticism would be more appropriate for the current contents of the section. Legoktm (talk) 03:38, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

@Legoktm: Hi! Thanks for the message, gladly! I added the title mostly because WP:CRITS states that sections focused only in negative criticism are discouraged; moreover, the second paragraph appears to consist mostly in a dispute over one of NetBlocks' report and not criticism towards the organization per se. I also believe that the section could use further positive feedback. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:31, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

@Legoktm The Reception section appears to be based entirely anonymous claims and hearsay and doesn't add much value to the article. In general, I tend to agree with @NoonIcarus that the article needs more positive treatment to reflect the organization's work using reliable sources. The sections about a mailing list are unclear, and it's not obvious what significance is attributed to these discussions, or why that mailing list is relevant. OliverHargreaves (talk) 08:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the level of detail in the (now deleted) reception/criticism section was inappropriate relative to the subject, but a one-liner summarizing the fact that there has been conflict might not be amiss. Bill Woodcock (talk) 08:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment Bill. A one liner could work but there’s little information about the person who squatted the five internet domains. The WIPO judgement implies that person is a U.S. federal government employee and per D2020-2240 the case revolved around anti-competitive conduct targeting NetBlocks, with the domains squatted in bad faith for use as bargaining chips. In any case, coverage of legal proceedings should follow Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Legal. From a quick search I can see that the case has been cited as a benchmark for "bad faith" in two later tribunals, which would make it notable per the guideline. OliverHargreaves (talk) 09:59, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I fail to see how Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Legal would require removal of this section. Be that as it may, I have reverted this deletion, considering that the deletion rationale that the removed content was based entirely on anonymous sources was obviously false. The cited reference is an article by a named journalist and Wired is considered a generally reliable source by community consensus (WP:RSP).

WP:NPOV requires us to all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. The Wired article is titled How the internet censorship world turned on NetBlocks. NetBlocks has become a crucial source of truth in the era of internet shutdowns. But many are now questioning its methods.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 08:05, 25 February 2025 (UTC)