Talk:Right to repair

Right to repair Draft Discussion
HI, i believe that the current electronics right to repair article is - poorly written - lacks significant content related to right to repair in other industries - could be much much better I would love to get feedback and suggestions how to merge them into Right to Repair Fthobe (talk) 11:29, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * As bespoken with article gets an expansion and will be revised to link to Electronics right to repairFthobe (talk) 12:41, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Where was this discussion? Curious to know why this is two articles and not one (especially given how electronics seem to be embedded in everything nowadays, including automobiles, medical equipment, etc.) Superb Owl (talk) 16:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Future plans for this article
I think it would be a dramatical improvement to branch out automotive content into a future article and leave only summary style content in this one. Who wants to give it a shot is welcome to try :) Fthobe (talk) 11:19, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Feedback from New Page Review process
I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Thanks for your work. Good start, needs work per the tags..

North8000 (talk) 19:10, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Why no France or EU?
The main place, to have introduced Right-to-Repair-laws, is France and the UE. Why is there no mention of France, or the EU? 94.255.211.44 (talk) 18:10, 21 September 2023 (UTC)


 * feel free to help us add this content Superb Owl (talk) 16:19, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Right to Repair article improvements
Hi all,

I'm looking to help overhaul this page and have it more accurately reflect the movement on R2R. As the last commenter noted, the page is currently lacking in content; the EU has taken massive strides towards securing consumer rights with legislation touching eco-design, common connectors, removable batteries, and many other regulations that will make tech repairs more user friendly. The current structure of this page does not reflect that the movement is indeed worldwide; looking at the law and policy section, why would we give such weight to corporate policies? These comments are better suited towards the "history" section, as much of the corporate stance before 2023 has been "deny, deny, deny" in terms of consumer rights in the name of "security" and "safety". Is anyone interested in contributing to edits on this with me? NoahARepair (talk) 22:52, 2 February 2024 (UTC)


 * @NoahARepair, I've started working through the article starting at the bottom and agree that this organization of the article does not make much sense to me either - it sounds like that is something you might know more about the EU than me - happy to copyedit and contribute if you want to start a section on those policies.
 * Also, does anyone think it's notable to mention bills that were simply introduced or at this point should we just include bills that made it into law? Superb Owl (talk) 00:22, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Superb Owl I'd be happy to get moving on something here. Part of my concern is that the history section feels unnecessary to discuss in terms of the movement. The whole section could be reworked and its elements dispersed into other sections, or other articles entirely (unless reworked into a segue for broader activist work and discussing those origins, too). I'd say that referencing bills introduced will be a tall order (but manageable); I think discussing the *types* of legislation might be better for this sort of article, using specific pieces of law that have their own articles as examples of an overarching theme (e.g. talk about EU eco-design directives as the example on laws requiring access to parts, tools, and documentation). The whole history section can be reworked into one that, rather than focusing on the history of laws and corporate policy, focuses on the barriers that have necessitated the movement's growth and the laws cited. NoahARepair (talk) 19:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @NoahARepair - I'll follow your lead here - you seem to have a vision that also focuses more on concepts than listing dates, which I support. I'll continue trimming references to introduced bills without multiple notable sources. What would you think about a table that summarizes legislation with columns for the various facets each bill does or does not address? Superb Owl (talk) 21:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Superb Owl that sounds like a good start; as much as it would be cool to have a list of introduced things, R2R has massively picked up steam this year (close to 30 U.S. states have proposed bills covering things like automobiles, wheelchairs, other specific device archetypes). Ideally the table you're thinking of would be close to the top of the article (maybe third, after the intro and a section defining the movement?), and could list out pieces of legislation that either 1) already have a separate Wikipedia article to link to or 2) are vital to a given facet of R2R (e.g. Oregon's sweeping bill that is the first-in-the-nation to put restrictions on the practice of parts pairing). NoahARepair (talk) 21:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @NoahARepair - I actually would prefer to focus on concepts first and use bills as examples of places these concepts have been addressed (or not) instead of trying to endlessly maintain a long list of proposed bills that usually don't pass. Maybe we hold off on a table and focus on expanding the definitions section? Would be interested to see the Oregon law in the timeline table for now though Superb Owl (talk) 21:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Superb Owl I was thinking that said table would only include examples of successful bills that are prime examples of a given type of regulation, with the focal point of it being the types themselves. Left column could be category (e.g. parts pairing ban), middle could elaborate on what that means in more detail, rightmost could give strongest existing example (here, likely the Oregon bill which has been signed into law). I agree that getting the concepts across is the most important piece; the table with specific references would only really serve to provide illustrative examples to contextualize how the movement's desires have, can, and should materialize. NoahARepair (talk) 22:10, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * (updated) Support the idea of this table. Will continue drafting and would appreciate any feedback or sources to help fill it out. I also noticed your COI on your user page and realize now why you've not been editing the article and am happy to do the editing. Superb Owl (talk) 22:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Merger proposal
Proposing merging Electronics right to repair into this article given the significant redundancy, lack of sources distinguishing between the two concepts, and the prevalence of electronics in all the types of 'Right to repair' discussed in this article. Superb Owl (talk) 18:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I have been WP:Bold and begun merging Electronics right to repair into this article Superb Owl (talk) 01:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)