Talk:Katherine Albrecht
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | It is requested that an image or photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
NPOV edit
This page and the page of her coauthor are not quite neutral, as they do not actually present the criticism of this book, which extends beyond the realm of corporations pooh-poohing the claims. RFIDs have a tremendous threat, but much of her book is speculative and is not verified by consensus. This will be a serious issue in the future and it is important to aim for neutrality. Donbas 17:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
The book "Spychips" is a fully footnoted academic quality work even though it is very readable. Why not read the book, review the footnotes, and then add appropriate comments?
- I will agree that this article seems more like an advertisement for her book than an unbiased review of the person (rave reviews included). As we all know, we've been called to increase the quality of articles, so it needs to be cleaned up or deleted. Ninjkabat 18:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Albrecht.jpg edit
Image:Albrecht.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 19:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Commentary moved from article to talk page edit
Moved from the article:
- One has to wonder WHY a person with a doctorate would cause people to lose money for using 'reward' cards.
- Most don't require any ID and ALL of them save the average family $1500/yr. "A little knowledge in the wrong hands is dangerous".
The above commentary had been inserted in the article by editor "Effort2". Editors' commentaries go on the talk pages, not in Wikipedia articles. Famspear (talk) 21:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Unless you're posting for one of the companies that uses or sells these loyalty card systems, you probably haven't seen her website. It explains why loyalty cards actually cause prices to go UP. In my metro area, the stores without loyalty cards have the lowest prices. Bostoner (talk) 22:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)