Talk:Protecting Children from Internet Pornographers Act of 2011

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Status and Milestone Tracking[edit]

One thing severely lacking from this article, is any kind of tracking of the status of this bill, and the actions taken by Congress and the white house. From the current state of this article, it's not even possible to determine; if this bill is in the initial proposal stage, has been voted in committee, been voted by full congress, or signed into law. RevDan (talk) 21:53, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality tags[edit]

I removed a non-neutral tag from the article as well as the talk page. The talk page banner was just misplaced; it belongs on the article. The one on the article did not refer to any points of dispute on this talk page. If you have any, please detail them here before adding the tag back. Also, you might review the text again since I've cleaned it up a bit in the past day. Ocaasi t | c 04:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Versions[edit]

This edit (from 1/26/2012) removes all discussion of retention requirements from the scope. The latest bill from Thomas (as "Reported in House") clearly has these requirements in Section 4 (RETENTION OF CERTAIN RECORDS BY ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION SERVICE PROVIDERS.), so I've added them back. The latest action on the bill was on 12/16/2011. Superm401 - Talk 06:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that the time period was wrong; it is correct in my addition. Superm401 - Talk 06:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality[edit]

"The bill is being used as a subterfuge to pass sections of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement into the U.S. Congress." that one is definitely not neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiwibird (talk • contribs) 18:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A common misconception[edit]

One thing I am noticing in blog/twitter chatter about this bill is a misconception that it requires ISPs to store everyone's full browsing history, i.e. to log everything. As far as I can see from the bill itself and from higher quality sources, it merely mandates that ISPs keep records on which customer had which dynamic ip number assigned under certain circumstances. I made an edit yesterday to clarify this, but it seems to be the sort of issue that we need to get precisely right. (And if I'm wrong, I hope I'll be quickly corrected here.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, it requires ISPs to retain info about what IP addresses their customers have been assigned, and then additionally to retain certain types of info about their customers - which includes stuff like the credit card numbers they've used to pay for service - but which doesn't include anything like full browsing history. I've updated the article to reflect this, and will be adding more info and better sources in the coming days (I am editing this article as a class assignment.) Kevin (talk) 00:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

integrating reception in to other areas of the article[edit]

I know standalone criticism sections are generally discouraged in articles, and I think that standalone reception sections are mediocre for similar reasons. Over the course of today, I'll be restructuring the format of this article to eliminate the standalone reception section (and add more content.) If anyone objects, lemme know. Kevin (talk) 19:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

cyberlaw first review[edit]

This is a very well-written article. I made a few minor changes you may have already seen in the 'View history'.

Also, I have a couple questions/suggestions for you to consider:

1. Should 'National Center for Victims of Crime' be a link if the article has not been created yet?

2. Where you write, '- including by the Center for Democracy and Technology -' perhaps change dashes to commas instead (this is a stylistic suggestion)?

3. Where you write '(c)(2) of 18 USC 2703' perhaps cite it with this source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2703

Let me know if I should have outright made the changes I suggested above. I felt unsure about whether I should consult you first before making these changes. Thanks!

Iristotle (talk) 04:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the review. I like red links, so I'm going to leave that one in for now - people can see red links and then be suddenly inspired to write the article so they turn blue, it's one of the ways the encyclopedia expands. I'll make the dash change and link a source for 18 USC 2703 momentarily.
I'm also going to change back the comma's so that they are before the citations again, instead of after. I know it seems weird and atypical, but Wikipedia prefers citations outside of punctuation and not inside -- Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Citation_style. Kevin (kgorman-ucb) (talk) 07:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, sorry about putting your citations inside the punctuation! Thanks making me aware of the wiki standard. Iristotle (talk) 19:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and I also failed the DYK nomination. You have to have expanded an article at least 500% to get it on DYK if it isn't newly created, and I didn't expand the article that much. Kevin (kgorman-ucb) (talk) 07:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

changes[edit]

The second review for this article (this is currently an academic assignment) made some pretty substantial changes, some of which I'll be altering. Here's an outline of what I think I'll be changing:

  • The lede is currently far too long. Per WP:LEDE, there's no way that a six paragraph lede is a good idea for an article of this size. I'll be reworking the lede so that it's more concise, and moving irelevant information from the lede in to the body of the article
  • Section headers should not be entirely capitalized per the MOS.
  • Separate/standalone criticism sections are generally discouraged; it's better to integrate criticism in to other relevant sections of the article. (also, as it currently exists, the section labeled criticism actually isn't entirely criticism anyway.) I'll be reworking the sections so that there is no standalone criticism or praise section. As it is, I think it presents a sort of artificial equivalence between the two sides instead of NPOV, which, per WP:NPOV, we should generally strive to avoid.
  • Popvox conducts online polls, and their methodology makes it unlikely that their polls are neutral or representative of the general population. I'll try to replace the popvox poll with polling date from a traditional reputable public polling group.
  • Some of the recently added quotes are overly long.

It may take me a few days to make all these changes, but they're on the way. If anyone wants to beat me to it, please feel free. Kevin (kgorman-ucb) (talk) 22:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment[edit]

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at University of California, Berkeley supported by WikiProject Cyberlaw and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Spring term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:44, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment[edit]

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at University of Toronto supported by WikiProject Wikipedia and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Fall term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by Primefac (talk) on 16:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Created a subsection[edit]

the lead seems to be too long, I have created a subsection "overview" for better understanding Bilgiljilll (talk) 09:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Protecting_Children_from_Internet_Pornographers_Act_of_2011&oldid=1209006617"