Talk:Electronics right to repair

Electronics Mid‑importance

	Electronics portal This redirect is part of WikiProject Electronics, an attempt to provide a standard approach to writing articles about electronics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the redirect attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Leave messages at the project talk pageElectronicsWikipedia:WikiProject ElectronicsTemplate:WikiProject Electronicselectronic articles
Mid	This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Right to repair movement

I don't want to project my personal opinion onto wikipedia, so I won't mention any individual or group. However had, I believe this may be of historic importance because currently a lot of legislation is influenced or adapted, possibly in parts due to that right to repair movement (see comments or videos in various "social" media outlets). For wikipedia, it would be very useful to gather facts, in particular in regards to specific dates and certain legislation. While I refer to the USA here mostly, as this may also influence other countries this may be important to make detailed, without "drowning in details". Electronics are merely one part of a general right to repair, but given how important electronic devices have become, I believe this may be one of the more important aspects of a general right to repair (of purchased items, although it would also be interesting to determine the "service" model and being relevant to that). 2A02:8388:1602:6D80:C080:419D:679D:C9F8 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:23, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

overreliance on first-party sources

@Grammie repair: I know you've been adding a lot of information, but I would caution that a lot of this material is using first-party sources (organizations that support right-to-repair). We really should be sourcing the bulk of the general information to third-party sources, though some first-party when talking about the organizations themselves can be okay. --Masem (t) 14:19, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because the Right to Repair of Electronics is a legislative initiative started by first parties (autos, then electronics), I thought it was more accurate to use original material from the parties involved rather than largely derivative sources such as news articles. If this doesn't meet the standard, please help me update the materials to match the requirement. Grammie Repair.

Its fine to use some first-party material (particularly from sources that are very supportive of this movement) to support discussions, but you should lead into it with third-party coverage since these first-party sources will be biased on the topic. For example, on the statement "The earliest known published reference using the phrase comes from the auto industry dating back to 2003" (which has nothing to do with any specific group), that should ideally be sourced to a third-party. Or later you have a statement related to the 2014 MOU , but first ref to one of these first-party groups. Instead, you can use the immediately following source from the Atlantic (or a source like this from Car & Driver [1]) as the first reference, and then link to these first-party sources for the more detailed version. The first-party sources should augment but not frame the content of the article, if that makes sense. --Masem (t) 16:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Wozniak speaks on Right to Repair

I think we should mention somehow a what Steve Wozniak had said on this basic thing. Here is the YT link [2] ; NOTE: he speaks personally so feel safe to cite it per WP:RSCONTEXT AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 17:37, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]