Talk:Dark pattern

This article was nominated for deletion on February 19 2013. The result of the discussion was delete.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing: Software / Websites Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Websites (assessed as Low-importance). Internet Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Human–Computer Interaction (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human–Computer Interaction, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Human–Computer InteractionWikipedia:WikiProject Human–Computer InteractionTemplate:WikiProject Human–Computer InteractionHuman–Computer Interaction Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The page was last made in 2013 before secondary sources appeared. I think inclusion in big-name sites like Ars Technica and the New York Times is enough to warrant this page's relevance.--Mychemicalromanceisrealemo (talk) 19:59, 29 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Agreed, I've removed the CSD notice. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

However, it further points out the degree to which people are willing to accept terminology invented out of whole cloth *because* of wikipedia. There was no such term in use to mean this until this website showed up and people made a conscious effort to put it in wikipedia. There was no prior rush to pay attention to this person or his site. At that point, because people errantly view wikipedia as an authority on its own, the term starts floating around as if it's real.

And at *that* point, the places that float that term are circularly mentioned (or even cited) back in the original wikipedia page, thus solidifying its supposed relevance. This would only rarely happen in a real encyclopedia, if at all.

𝓦𝓲𝓴𝓲𝓹𝓮𝓭𝓲𝓪𝓘𝓼𝓝𝓸𝓽𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭-𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓑𝔂𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓼𝓞𝓷𝓵𝔂 (talk) 14:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

I think this article documents an example of "Pay to play UX", which, given the harms that resulted, sure seems like a dark pattern worth documenting: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-01-29/health-records-company-pushed-opioids-to-doctors-in-secret-deal

Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tantek (talk • contribs) 23:18, 3 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

The official website and the Twitter page have changed the official terminology from Dark patterns to Deceptive design. The name change was proposed to be clearer and inclusive https://www.deceptive.design/about-us. This page must also be updated accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sramx (talk • contribs) 00:42, 19 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

I agree with this change. - Gorba (talk) 23:32, 13 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

I need to review a proposed law review article with "dark patterns" in the title. I didn't know what they were. It was helpful to be taken to this pretty clear description (and collection of examples). The sample in the top right was a useful demonstration of the use of dark patterns - which are not always 'deceptive' but which are at least borderline sleazy. 69.196.142.73 (talk) 01:36, 4 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

man "inclusivity" is such a crock of shit... ~2025-31499-00 (talk) 07:07, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Why is something Trump's campaign allegedly did the only specific mention of a dark pattern on this entire page? POV and politics much? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.200.91 (talk) 23:42, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

If you have other examples (with good sources) feel free to add them. Nuretok (talk) 06:26, 27 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Critical Information Obscurity—Apple uses this tactic on its Apple TV+ page. It's a "dark pattern" in the sense that the Account homepage prominently displays "My Apple Account Balance" with $0.00 next to other account details, making it seem like there's no active subscription. However, the actual subscription status is buried inside a link near the bottom of the page, making it easy to overlook. The idea is that a company will obscure or hide a critical piece of information in a place where most people wouldn’t instinctively think to look—intentionally making it harder to find in order to keep something going unnoticed. What do you think? - Gorba (talk) 23:27, 13 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

I am developing Draft:Easy-to-cancel_mandate, concerning laws and regulatory measures in multiple jurisdictions intended to make cancellation of recurring subscriptions reasonably simple or comparable to subscribing.

Different jurisdictions and sources use different terminology. “Easy-to-Cancel Mandate” is therefore being used as a descriptive, jurisdiction-neutral working title; whether that title is appropriate is part of this discussion.

I would welcome uninvolved comments on:

• whether reliable sources support treating this as a coherent cross-jurisdictional topic;
• whether it warrants a standalone article or should be merged into Automatic renewal clause, Dark pattern, or another article;
• whether a more commonly sourced, jurisdiction-neutral title exists; and
• whether the cross-jurisdictional framing creates any WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, or WP:UNDUE concerns.

Please evaluate the proposed article using its sources and Wikipedia policies rather than the merits of the underlying regulations. xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 19:09, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Notifications posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law, Talk:Automatic renewal clause, Talk:Dark pattern, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Business.