Talk:Consumer Watchdog

Requested move

 * The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Consumer Watchdog (USA) → Consumer Watchdog — There are presently two organizations sharing this name, one in the United States at Consumer Watchdog (USA) and one in Botswana at Consumer Watchdog (Botswana). By any objective measure I can come up with, the organization based in California appears to be the primary topic with this name, far exceeding the notability of the organization based in Gaborone (see below, momentarily, for some of the statistics). Therefore, I propose that this article be moved into place, with an appropriate dabhat linking directly to any disambiguation page as well as the article for the organization in Botswana. user: J  aka justen (talk) 23:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Survey

 * Support, on the basis that the U.S. organization is a far more likely search target. The appropriate hatnote already is in place, so the minority of readers seeking the Botswanan organization will be unaffected.  —David Levy 23:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose - in the United States, it's possible that the USA group is indeed the more likely search target. For the rest of the English-speaking world, however, I've so far seen no conclusive evidence that either group is more notable than the other, apart from a larger number of Google hits for the US group. Consumer Watchdog (Botswana) should be restored to its original title of Consumer Watchdog unless proof can be found that Consumer Watchdog (USA) is the more likely primary search target for the majority of the English-WP readership. MuffledThud (talk) 23:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Firstly, User:J has cited overwhelming evidence below. Secondly, your argument (expressed in greater detail at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation‎) that Consumer Watchdog (Botswana) should be moved back to Consumer Watchdog purely because it was there first has zero basis in policy or common sense.  —David Levy 23:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No, what I said was that the Botswana article should be moved back if neither can be proven more notable worldwide, in order to remove the redundant dab page. Also, a higher number of Google hits alone is not "overwhelming evidence": please see WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. MuffledThud (talk) 23:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You should probably withdraw the requested move you have proposed over at the other article. It's wp:pointy beyond belief.  user: J  aka justen (talk) 23:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. —David Levy 00:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No pointyness was meant, as I've said at the other article's talk page. Both proposals should be evalated side-by-side, as they are two approaches to the same problem. MuffledThud (talk) 00:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The fact that a single issue is being addressed is a perfect reason to not split off a separate discussion. —David Levy 00:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * User:J has cited more than Google hits (which themselves carry a great deal of weight when the margin is this great). —David Levy 00:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Support (obviously). There seems to be no comparison, in terms of the likelihood that someone would be seeking the organization based in the United States: based on city of headquarters (14,900 versus 898), the state of headquarters (67,400 versus 2,340), the lead officer (17,400 versus 319), recent news articles (251 versus 4), or archived news articles (2,190 versus 93).  I make no claim that this methodology is anywhere near perfect, but I think it provides some idea of the relative notability.  As well, since the articles were moved into their current locations, Wikipedia traffic has been two-to-one to the article for the organization based in the United States.  By any objective statistic I can find, one has a claim to common usage while the other simply does not.  user: J  aka justen (talk) 23:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you please provide links to your claims of 2-to-1 WP traffic? I may be reading the stats wrong, so please explain to me, as you would to a child, how you arrived at that figure.  Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 00:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I used stats.grok, and simply added the results from March to September of this year for each article. Both articles were moved into their current locations in February (although the Botswana article had an exaggerated spike in traffic in February due to the deletion discussion).  The totals were 1,247 versus 605.  user: J  aka justen (talk) 00:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Support, based on stats given in the discussion below. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Or let Consumer watchdog also list important consumer watchdog otganizations which have other names. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * 1. A disambiguation page is intended to list articles that realistically could be sought under its title, not articles that merely pertain to the topic that said title describes.
 * 2. This proposal involves the title Consumer Watchdog (with an uppercase "W"). Consumer watchdog (with a lowercase "w") has several common meanings and should remain a disambiguation page.  —David Levy 06:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Consumer watchdog disambiguates only the two "Consumer Watchdog" articles (and has a See also list. It should be renamed Consumer Watchdog (disambiguation) or Consumer Watchdog, depending on the existence of a primary topic. If there's a primary topic, it could be deleted db-disambig or converted to a list article, if that's what's intended. Or converted to a disambiguation of "consumer watchdog", if the "See also" entries are actually ambiguous. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, the last option is called for. The term "consumer watchdog" is a common generic phrase referring to people and organizations that seek to defend consumer interests.  Both Consumer organization and Watchdog journalism are plausible targets, along with the organizations formally known as "Consumer Watchdog" (whose name might be searched for without capitalization).  In fact, I'll correct the disambiguation page now (by moving the two aforementioned items out of the See also section).  —David Levy 16:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, it's a broader term, so it's important we try to include the various related or synonymous topics folks might be trying to get to. user: J  aka justen (talk) 17:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. I can imagine some cases where we might want to positively discriminate in cases like this in order to counter systematic bias (certain countries are far more Webified than others, for example, leading to skewing of the Google stats), but here the figures seem so overwhelming that there's no reasonable doubt about the primary topic. (And as has been pointed out, those looking for the Botswana organization are not inconvenienced by having the US one as the base page rather than a dab, since they get to their destination with the same number of clicks.)--Kotniski (talk) 07:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Although I agree that the US version is probably the primary of the two organisations 'consumer watchdog' also has a wide usage as a general term referring to a Consumer organization (at least in the UK) and as such Consumer watchdog should stay as a disambiguation page. Dpmuk (talk) 23:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You appear to have misunderstood. The proposal is to move the article to Consumer Watchdog (with an uppercase "W").  Consumer watchdog (with a lowercase "w") would remain a disambiguation page.  —David Levy 04:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I may have missed that subtlety but it doesn't change my oppose as I don't believe that two different articles should be at titles only differing by capitalisation. Many readers undoubtedly assume that we capatilise each word and so using capitals to disambiguate is confusing. Dpmuk (talk) 09:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Not if we ensure there are appropriate hatnotes. I think capitalization is a good way of disambiguating in a situation like this - it means more readers will go straight to their target article (if they use standard capitalization principles, which many of them will).--Kotniski (talk) 10:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Titular disambiguation via capitalization is a longstanding, consensus-backed practice. Please see Naming conventions (capitalization) (which advises us to place a hatnote at the top of each article, as mentioned above by Kotniski) and Naming conventions (precision) (where the example articles Red meat and Red Meat are cited).  —David Levy 11:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd read both of those polices before commenting and I'm sorry but I'm not sure how you've formed that opinion. Naming conventions (capitalization) only says it is possible, there is no statement either way as to whether it should be used or not.  Naming conventions (precision) when refering to this issue states "In this case, try to avoid confusion, per the general principle: When a reader enters this term and clicks 'Go', what article are they most likely expecting to view as a result?".  In my opinion a significant proportion of readers would expect to end up at a general article when searching for Consumer Watchdog and as such there is no clear primary topic and as such I think it's best left as a disambiguation page.  Additionally I am forming the view that consensus is moving agaist having pages that differ only by capitalisation even if it was supported in the past.  As the policy does not, in my opinion, direct either way we can only go by current consensus.  Although I respect your right to disagree with me in my opinion my view in no way goes against policy.  Dpmuk (talk) 13:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * 1. I formed that opinion by observing the practice for years.
 * 2. You haven't addressed the Red meat/Red Meat example cited at Naming conventions (precision). In what way is that materially different?
 * 3. Consensus certainly can change, but I'm unfamiliar with the shift to which you've referred. Can you please link to one or more discussions in which this is evidenced?  —David Levy 15:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * 1. That's fair enough. I however got the impression that you'd formed the opinion from the policy pages and as I state I don't believe the policy is clear.
 * 2. I have a major problem with this example. As far as I can see looking at the edit log for that page there was no consensus to include it as an example, it was simply added by an editor.  Obviously it's prescence there for so long gives it some weight but even then the one discussion about it on the talk page (2007) reaches no clear consensus either way.
 * 3. Well I wasn't aware of the discussion in 2007 but that suggests even in 2007 consensus was unclear.  Unfortunately I can't link to any discussions as it's more a feeling I've developed and I can't remember from exactly which discussions.  There is one other discussion I'm currently involved in where a couple of other editors have stated that they feel that article titles shouldn't differ only by capitalisation.
 * Given the above I feel that consensus is currently unclear and that quoting a policy is unhelpful given the uncertainity of support for it both when it was added and since. Additionally there is some indication that consensus may have changed (although this is far from clear cut).  Is a RfC on the policy a way forward as this obviously effects more than just this page? Dpmuk (talk) 21:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * 1. Ah, okay. Those pages document procedures through which disambiguation via capitalization is to be carried out, which I cited as evidence that such a practice is normal and permissible (not evidence that it's mandated).  And while I strongly support the method, I don't believe that it should be used indiscriminately.
 * 2. As you said, the example's long-term presence suggests consensus for its inclusion. Note, however, that it isn't that particular article (Red Meat) that's relevant.  It's the title's nature that is.  As an example, this merely illustrates a naming convention that has been widely used at Wikipedia since before I began editing.
 * 3. I haven't gotten the impression that consensus has changed, but I'm certainly not saying that you're wrong. Indeed, an RfC probably would be appropriate.  —David Levy 23:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and especially per WP:PRECISION ("...try to avoid confusion, per the general principle: When a reader enters this term and clicks 'Go', what article are they most likely expecting to view as a result?") However, I would support a move to Consumer Watchdog (United States), the typical disambiguation format.  Also check out WP:BIAS.  —   AjaxSmack   02:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't understand - surely WP:PRIMARYTOPIC implies that we should use the unmodified name here?--Kotniski (talk) 07:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm equally puzzled. The basis of this move request is that the article about the U.S. organization is what readers are most likely expecting to view as a result.
 * And WikiProject Countering systemic bias is utterly irrelevant; the proposal reflects real-world usage, not a distorted presentation stemming from editor bias. —David Levy 13:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose. While there may be organizations that are named this way, the primary use is an individual or organization that supports consumer rights.  The fact that we have versions with a different capitalization does not mean we should not keep the dab page. You can find this use defined here. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, no one is proposing that we "not keep the dab page." It resides at Consumer watchdog (with a lowercase "w"), to which Consumer Watchdog (with an uppercase "W") presently redirects.  Consumer Watchdog (USA) links to that disambiguation page (and would continue to if moved to Consumer Watchdog).  —David Levy 03:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I should also add that I expect, of course, that there will be ample and accessible dabhat(s) utilized to assist readers in getting quickly from this any any other related articles to the disambiguation page with the lowercase "w". user: J  aka justen (talk) 03:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Support There are tons of instances on Wikipedia where the same term, with differing capitalizations, goes to different articles. I think this is one case where it makes sense, and I agree with the evidence that the US organization is the primary use where both words are capitalized. Propaniac (talk) 03:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Comment WP:PRIMARYTOPIC suggests these possible ways to assess this;
 * Incoming wikilinks
 * 4 articles link to Consumer Watchdog (USA) (here)
 * 6 articles link to Consumer Watchdog (Botswana) (here)
 * Article traffic statistics - according to my sums, for 01-2009 to 08-2009
 * Consumer Watchdog (USA) has been viewed 1055 times in 2009
 * Consumer Watchdog (Botswana) has been viewed 2873 times in 2009
 * Note: Consumer Watchdog (Botswana) was viewed 2634 times in 200902, presumably as a result of the deletion discussion. The viewings for the rest of the year are therefore only 239
 * Google
 * Searching Google for "Consumer Watchdog Botswana" (not in quotes) gives me 30,300 hits
 * Searching Google for "Consumer Watchdog USA" (not in quotes) gives me 1,240,000 hits
 * Searching Google News (all dates) for "Consumer Watchdog Botswana" (not in quotes) gives me 166 hits
 * Searching Google News (all dates) for "Consumer Watchdog USA" (not in quotes) gives me 2,100 hits
 * Searching Google Books for "Consumer Watchdog Botswana" (not in quotes) gives me 22 hits
 * Searching Google Books for "Consumer Watchdog USA" (not in quotes) gives me 1,056 hits
 *  Chzz  ►  00:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment This RfC discussing whether we should we allow article titles that differ only by capitalisation may be of interest to people invlved in this discussion. Dpmuk (talk) 13:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Google
There has recently been coverage of Consumer Watchdog and their criticism of Google, for, apparently among other things, their privacy policies and dominance in some areas of the technology industry. I'm not sure how significant of a "cause" Google is at this point for this organization, but it could certainly be mentioned if anyone thinks it is important. jæs (talk) 08:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This so-called "Consumer" company is nothing but a giant realllife sock puppet, it's so obvious and can easily be verified. This NEEDS to be in a Wikipedia article about the company. Jaes, why are you removing anything about this, calling any substantial evidence and proof simply "unreliable sourcing", when everybody can verify it by simply clicking on the embedded links? Also, please refrain of sock puppet calling, I'm not the one strangely protecting some fishy company here, my 2-day block was because of an edit war with an insanely stubborn guy that wouldn't realize he wrote complete BS in his article on C64 programming techniques, which I any many others (who are definarely not sock puppets) just happen to know very, very well. Just because this guy called me a sock puppet does not make it so. -- DeeKay64 (talk) 07:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking through the history of the talk page, i saw that you already also removed comments on that topic by another user - whom you also managed to get banned on claims of sock puppetry. Why are you calling anyone raising the topic a sock puppet, trying to get them banned? It's obvious there's something fishy about that company, so whether you believe it or not, there's actually more than one person on the planet trying to get this mentioned on their wiki-article. I had to go through the whole process of ban appeal to get my wiki-account back just because of you, -- DeeKay64 (talk) 12:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If you have something to add regarding the content you want included in this article, please discuss that on its merits. Enough with the tendentious nonsense.  jæs (talk)  18:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

It attacks on google seem noteworthy, particularly with allegations that it is potentially astroturfing. Knowing the be bold policy I've made changes. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've cut out the unreliable sources, they're not made acceptable simply through bold inclusion. I've also toned down the synthesis and rhetoric.  Finally, the "astroturfing" allegations are completely unsubstantiated by reliable sourcing, but the "myth" goes back to an ill-informed blog post that's been bandied about here from time to time that "uncovered" that the company Consumer Watchdog uses for web hosting also has Microsoft as a client.  We're not a newswire.  If you think Microsoft is using Consumer Watchdog as a front to attack Google, call the media.  If there's a shred of evidence, it'll be a big story, and then it can be included in the article and reliably sourced.  But we're not Wikipedia Rumors or Wikipedia Investigative Journalism.  jæs (talk)  21:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

COI Concerns
I am trying to address any COI concerns. Thank you for brining this to attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamal Farmer (talk • contribs) 21:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It isn't terrible, but it does read as a list of the good that Consumer Watchdog has done, rather than being written from a completely neutral point of view. tedder (talk) 21:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Consumer Watchdog. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.oilwatchdog.org/articles/?storyId=3711
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130220112912/http://e-foia.uspto.gov/Foia/ReterivePdf?system=BPAI&flNm=fd2012011693-01-22-2013-1 to http://e-foia.uspto.gov/Foia/ReterivePdf?system=BPAI&flNm=fd2012011693-01-22-2013-1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:26, 12 August 2017 (UTC)