Talk:TrustArc

message: --LCIKevin 21:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

message: 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.
Removed the timeline, im sure truste.org can have that on it's website.Woods01 (talk) 01:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  articles for deletion? 

message: Undid this edit:. 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 So that's no longer valid info.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)
replies: text: Undid some unsourced COI edits . --John Nagle (talk) 18:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted some questionable material.  

message: 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)
replies: text: I tend to agree, but IP editors and SPAs keep trying to make it even more promotional.  Please watch the article. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 05:31, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Added newsrelease tag 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: AFD Candidate

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on TRUSTe. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  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  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.truste.com/privacy-program-requirements/program-requirements.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified