Talk:Ecosia/Archive 1

Article creation

Created English page for Ecosia, using only the very basic facts about the company; other Wikipedians should please expand this with more information, as long as there are substantial and objective citations. This article creation fixes dozens of broken links throughout Wikipedia, and I've confirmed the content from the German page for Ecosia. 893jf8943hgkd893 15:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

mission statement

I deleted the verbatim mission statement because it unduly promotes the organization. What a company aims to do is different from what it does. Surely if this company is notable there are reliable secondary sources that state what it does without using press releases, and the article should plainly state that. The Bcorp source is clearly nonindependent. --Animalparty-- (talk) 17:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

How many trees did they plant and where

For a company that built around a single statement: "that they use their revenue to plant NEW trees" (which is a different one from protecting them, which sometimes is nothing more than pouring out the money to locals) it misses a clear documentation about those supposedly new trees planted. Maps and reports by independent third entities checking how many and where were those trees planted, and which species and which purpose, as it is not the same to plant a native tree to restore forestry than an agricultural polluting tree. However, so far they have planted over 5 million trees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.30.132.83 (talk) 11:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Someone added this to the content (hopefully inadvertently). I deleted it, but am preserving it here:

Has someone been editing this and deletig tree planting mile stones that were recorded? It was a good record to show how the planting rate was increasing. What harm did it do having miles stones such as 15 million trees, 20 million, 30 million, 40 million , recorded? Some of us have been working harding spreading the word. It was good having a record to show its increasing growth.

If independent sources report credible milestones, such numbers could certainly be briefly mentioned. But Wikipedia is not a repository for excessive, indiscriminate data (see also WP:INDISCRIMINATE). The topic has a functional own website where such details can be presented. GermanJoe (talk) 17:05, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Article reads like an advert.

Large parts of content were copied from ecosia.org and bcorporation.net and are not neutral.12:42, 20 June 2018 (UTC)12:42, 20 June 2018 (UTC)12:42, 20 June 2018 (UTC)~ history could use a complete rework. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starvedwolf (talk • contribs) 12:42, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Lots of bragging about how much they donate. I added the advert template to warn people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JLAF (talk • contribs) 08:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Update - I have just removed a large part of self-promotional listcruft and other fluff without independent sources. Apparently several users with a conflict of interest have misused this article as a PR platform for their goals. GermanJoe (talk) 17:00, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Most donations can be verified with organisations. I don't think that erasing everything is the right solution, but rather we should try to strengthen the sources. Nothing can be more objective than a table of figures, on which everyone can form their own opinion. Let's try to be constructive. Thom.Ang (talk) 18:46, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Excessive indiscriminate statistics without context and independent reliable sources do not belong on Wikipedia (see also WP:NOTIINFO). An encyclopedia is not a database or a free-of-charge webhost for information that should be hosted on the topic's own website. GermanJoe (talk) 18:00, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I recommend to remove the self referenced sources (domain ecosia.org ecosia.com and seriously scrutinize content added by ecosia employees. This page should stick to facts as history, founding, goals and services offered. The marketing blurb can be read on the linked pages.

Theking2 (talk) 21:53, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

That's just basic standards, usually we stick to secondary and tertiary sources on Wikipedia and I've told several users adding information here to use reliable secondary sources rather than the blog. I am not sure if I have "a conflict of interest" or not as I use it as my primary search engine, but it is quite clear that some people are a bit too eager to add content to make the company look better. I'm sure that a lot of these people aren't employees of the company rather they could be "free marketers" (or "corporate evangelists") as many people that have an interest (not a financial one, per se) in a company might want to act in such manners. --Donald Trung (talk) 22:12, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Capture d’écran 2019-04-07 à 00.03.35.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:21, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Ecosia home page 04.19 en.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:36, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

100 Mio trees benchmark a case for "In the news" on the Main page?

Hi, does something speak against nomination the 100 Mio trees benchmark for "In the news" on the Main page? Unfortunately I am not that experienced in the en.wikipedia yet. All the best--Stubenviech (talk) 19:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Independent sources for new content

Content, especially promotional content or extraordinary claims, needs to be based on independent reliable sources. Unsourced content with promotional claims or PR will be removed. Also, editors with a probable conflict of interest should disclose such a connection, as explained in WP:COI, and use article talk for edit requests. GermanJoe (talk) 16:02, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Possible grammar mistake?

In the fourth paragraph of the "Search Engine" section,should the sentence "A single search on Ecosia raises approximately half a Euro cent (0.005 EUR) on average, according to Ecosia's FAQ, taking 0.22 euro (€) and as of July 2020, or 0.75 seconds to plant a tree", should the "or" be removed, or perhaps changed to "only"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.35.90 (talk) 06:16, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I think it was the "and" that was extraneous. In any case, I have changed that sentence, updating the time (to 1.3s) as I did. Thanks for pointing this out. I knew there was something bugging me about that sentence, but I just didn't see it. (Also, please sign your future talk page posts with four tildes [~~~~]. Thanks.)— JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 23:25, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Waterfox

According to the Wiki page for Waterfox "After using Ecosia as the default search-engine for a brief time, it now defaults to using Bing.", but there seems to be no source for that claim. It appears this blog post on the Waterfox website suggests they indeed have dropped Ecosia.

Can someone verify if this is the case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simosito (talk • contribs) 10:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC)