Consumer Rights Wiki:Editorial guidelines - Revision history

Keith: /* Factual, non-accusatory, and legally safe */ clarity edit

2025-09-15T08:49:00Z

Factual, non-accusatory, and legally safe: clarity edit

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:49, 15 September 2025
Line 4:		Line 4:
	===Factual, non-accusatory, and legally safe===		===Factual, non-accusatory, and legally safe===

			*'''This is the appropriate tone for all non-theme articles.'''
	*Factual statements in articles should only be made where they directly reference a source. Direct inferences from these statements may be made, in a non-accusatory manner.		*Factual statements in articles should only be made where they directly reference a source. Direct inferences from these statements may be made, in a non-accusatory manner.
	*Source commentators often bring opinions, rants, and diatribes that add commentary & entertainment value; that is for their content. This is a repository of factual information. To be taken seriously, it must avoid coming off as the expression of an individual's personality.		*Source commentators often bring opinions, rants, and diatribes that add commentary & entertainment value; that is for their content. This is a repository of factual information. To be taken seriously, it must avoid coming off as the expression of an individual's personality.
Line 9:		Line 10:

	*No attribution of malice to the subjects of criticism, unless such malice has been established in a legal context or by a legitimate regulatory body. Even then, it should always be stated indirectly: 'The U.S. Supreme Court found that Company X...', rather than 'Company X did...'. Be sure to link the appropriate case or opinion using the Wiki's <code><nowiki><ref></nowiki></code> and <code><nowiki><references /></nowiki></code> tags.		*No attribution of malice to the subjects of criticism, unless such malice has been established in a legal context or by a legitimate regulatory body. Even then, it should always be stated indirectly: 'The U.S. Supreme Court found that Company X...', rather than 'Company X did...'. Be sure to link the appropriate case or opinion using the Wiki's <code><nowiki><ref></nowiki></code> and <code><nowiki><references /></nowiki></code> tags.
	*'''This will be the appropriate tone for all non-theme articles.'''

	===Persuasive, but professional===		===Persuasive, but professional===

			*'''This tone is for Theme articles - it not appropriate for the more factual accounts expected of individual Incidents, or articles about companies'''
	*The way one might speak in a Senate hearing, when lobbying for change. Passionate advocacy, but avoiding strong language, or causing unnecessary offense. Where argumentation is used, it is clear and direct.		*The way one might speak in a Senate hearing, when lobbying for change. Passionate advocacy, but avoiding strong language, or causing unnecessary offense. Where argumentation is used, it is clear and direct.
	*No direct attacks on named individuals or companies, but likely to be strong condemnation of specific practices, while citing the companies that do them. Malice may be attributed to bad and proven offenders, in a formal and calm manner.		*No direct attacks on named individuals or companies, but likely to be strong condemnation of specific practices, while citing the companies that do them. Malice may be attributed to bad and proven offenders, in a formal and calm manner.
	*This is the appropriate tone for explanatory theme articles which cover larger issues relating to consumer protection and is not specifically related to individual practices by individual companies, except where these are used as examples.		*This is the appropriate tone for explanatory theme articles which cover larger issues relating to consumer protection and is not specifically related to individual practices by individual companies, except where these are used as examples.
	*'''This tone is not appropriate for the more factual accounts expected of individual Incidents, and should instead be reserved for Theme articles.'''

	Minor revisions may be made to these guidelines from time to time, but they are expected to remain consistent with the Mission Statement, and the broad rules of thumb established here.		Minor revisions may be made to these guidelines from time to time, but they are expected to remain consistent with the Mission Statement, and the broad rules of thumb established here.

JackFromWisconsin: /* Appropriate use of sources */ note main page

2025-08-19T01:59:40Z

Appropriate use of sources: note main page

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:59, 19 August 2025
Line 45:		Line 45:

	==Appropriate use of sources==		==Appropriate use of sources==
			{{Main\|Consumer Rights Wiki:Verifiability}}
	Proper sourcing is fundamental to the Wiki's credibility and mission. This section provides guidance on evaluating, weighting, and citing different types of sources.		Proper sourcing is fundamental to the Wiki's credibility and mission. This section provides guidance on evaluating, weighting, and citing different types of sources.

Mr Pollo: /* Source hierarchy and reliability */

2025-08-17T00:58:36Z

Source hierarchy and reliability

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:58, 17 August 2025
Line 70:		Line 70:
	#*Legal statements from lawyers of a party to an event		#*Legal statements from lawyers of a party to an event
	#*Personal blogs without established credibilityClaims sourced anonymously (see below)		#*Personal blogs without established credibilityClaims sourced anonymously (see below)
			#'''No reliability'''
			#*Other wikis ([[wikipedia: wikipedia:Don%27t_cite_Wikipedia_on_Wikipedia\|even Wikipedia doesn’t source itself]])

	===Handling anonymous sources and vague attributions===		===Handling anonymous sources and vague attributions===

Keith: minor edit

2025-06-27T19:04:26Z

minor edit

Keith at 10:34, 7 May 2025

2025-05-07T10:34:35Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:34, 7 May 2025
Line 136:		Line 136:
	===I'm interested in writing about an incident, but it happened a long time ago. Can I put it on the Wiki?===		===I'm interested in writing about an incident, but it happened a long time ago. Can I put it on the Wiki?===
	Again, the answer here is yes! As long as it was a notable event which was relevant to consumer protection, and fits the other inclusion criteria for the wiki, then historical events within the last ~40 years are fine. Beyond ~40 years, though, any mentioned incidents should really be of historical significance in order to merit a mention.		Again, the answer here is yes! As long as it was a notable event which was relevant to consumer protection, and fits the other inclusion criteria for the wiki, then historical events within the last ~40 years are fine. Beyond ~40 years, though, any mentioned incidents should really be of historical significance in order to merit a mention.
	[[Category:~~CAT~~]]		[[Category:CRW]]

Keith: integrated the 'anonymity and vagueness in sources' article into here. will now go and delete that page.

2025-04-06T09:23:19Z

integrated the 'anonymity and vagueness in sources' article into here. will now go and delete that page.

@@ Line 33: / Line 33: @@
 *Deep dives into the technical functionality of a product at the center of an Incident
 *Unsourced 'facts', and excessive use of disreputable sources
-*The tone and language Louis might use in a rant video
+*The tone and language a Youtuber or disgruntled customer might use in a rant video or review
 *Direct insults to specific individuals or companies, or direct attribution of malice to said individuals or companies
-*This Wiki is not for "''Pissed off Louis"'' - that's for YouTube, and has no place here
+*This Wiki is not a place for righteous indignation - there are plenty of places on the internet to get mad about things, this is not one of them
 '''We will be especially vigilant against potentially harmful content, and take strong action against users who:'''
@@ Line 45: / Line 45: @@
 ==Appropriate use of sources==
-[This section is to be an adaptation of [[Consumer Action Taskforce:Anonymity and vagueness in citations|Anonymity and vagueness in citations]], but that adaptation will happen tomorrow]
+Proper sourcing is fundamental to the Wiki's credibility and mission. This section provides guidance on evaluating, weighting, and citing different types of sources.
 ==Editorial Q&As==
-=== Is it acceptable to, in an article detailing the faults with a particular product, direct users towards alternative products that do not share these issues? ===
+===Is it acceptable to, in an article detailing the faults with a particular product, direct users towards alternative products that do not share these issues?===
 This Wiki is not a place for product recommendations, and cannot be turned into a place for sneaky guerilla advertising, or the promotion of contributors' pet projects.
@@ Line 57: / Line 131: @@
 *If a company says ''"we cannot make xyz repair information available due to laws regarding consumer safety":'' it is acceptable to point to another company in that same industry, who provide such repair information, without legal consequence.
-=== I'm interested in writing an article about an issue which only really affects my (non-US) country... Is that ok to include in the Wiki? ===
+===I'm interested in writing an article about an issue which only really affects my (non-US) country... Is that ok to include in the Wiki?===
 '''Absolutely!''' Provided it meets all the criteria, and is written in English, there are no restrictions on the location in which an incident has occurred, or a company is based.
-=== I'm interested in writing about an incident, but it happened a long time ago. Can I put it on the Wiki? ===
+===I'm interested in writing about an incident, but it happened a long time ago. Can I put it on the Wiki?===
 Again, the answer here is yes! As long as it was a notable event which was relevant to consumer protection, and fits the other inclusion criteria for the wiki, then historical events within the last ~40 years are fine. Beyond ~40 years, though, any mentioned incidents should really be of historical significance in order to merit a mention.
 [[Category:CAT]]

Keith: added to Q&A

2025-04-05T09:06:54Z

added to Q&A

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:06, 5 April 2025
Line 49:		Line 49:
	==Editorial Q&As==		==Editorial Q&As==

	=====Is it acceptable to, in an article detailing the faults with a particular product, direct users towards alternative products that do not share these issues?=====		=== Is it acceptable to, in an article detailing the faults with a particular product, direct users towards alternative products that do not share these issues? ===
	This Wiki is not a place for product recommendations, and cannot be turned into a place for sneaky guerilla advertising, or the promotion of contributors' pet projects.		This Wiki is not a place for product recommendations, and cannot be turned into a place for sneaky guerilla advertising, or the promotion of contributors' pet projects.

Line 57:		Line 57:
	*If a company says ''"we cannot make xyz repair information available due to laws regarding consumer safety":'' it is acceptable to point to another company in that same industry, who provide such repair information, without legal consequence.		*If a company says ''"we cannot make xyz repair information available due to laws regarding consumer safety":'' it is acceptable to point to another company in that same industry, who provide such repair information, without legal consequence.

	=====I'm interested in writing an article about an issue which only really affects my (non-US) country... Is that ok to include in the Wiki?=====		=== I'm interested in writing an article about an issue which only really affects my (non-US) country... Is that ok to include in the Wiki? ===
	'''Absolutely!''' Provided it meets all the criteria, and is written in English, there are no restrictions on the location in which an incident has occurred, or a company is based.		'''Absolutely!''' Provided it meets all the criteria, and is written in English, there are no restrictions on the location in which an incident has occurred, or a company is based.

			=== I'm interested in writing about an incident, but it happened a long time ago. Can I put it on the Wiki? ===
			Again, the answer here is yes! As long as it was a notable event which was relevant to consumer protection, and fits the other inclusion criteria for the wiki, then historical events within the last ~40 years are fine. Beyond ~40 years, though, any mentioned incidents should really be of historical significance in order to merit a mention.
	[[Category:CAT]]		[[Category:CAT]]

Kostas at 17:45, 30 January 2025

2025-01-30T17:45:41Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:45, 30 January 2025
Line 45:		Line 45:

	==Appropriate use of sources==		==Appropriate use of sources==
	[This section is to be an adaptation of [[Anonymity ~~& Vagueness~~ in ~~Citations~~]], but that adaptation will happen tomorrow]		[This section is to be an adaptation of [[Consumer Action Taskforce:Anonymity and vagueness in citations\|Anonymity and vagueness in citations]], but that adaptation will happen tomorrow]

	==Editorial Q&As==		==Editorial Q&As==

Keith: /* 'Nice Louis' */ changed rossmann-specific tonal references for a more neutral alternative

2025-01-27T19:54:05Z

'Nice Louis': changed rossmann-specific tonal references for a more neutral alternative

Kostas: add category

2025-01-26T11:53:06Z

add category

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:53, 26 January 2025
Line 59:		Line 59:
	===== I'm interested in writing an article about an issue which only really affects my (non-US) country... Is that ok to include in the Wiki? =====		===== I'm interested in writing an article about an issue which only really affects my (non-US) country... Is that ok to include in the Wiki? =====
	'''Absolutely!''' Provided it meets all the criteria, and is written in English, there are no restrictions on the location in which an incident has occurred, or a company is based.		'''Absolutely!''' Provided it meets all the criteria, and is written in English, there are no restrictions on the location in which an incident has occurred, or a company is based.

			[[Category:CAT]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:04, 27 June 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
	==Use of tone==		==Use of tone==
	Detailed below are the two main 'tones' that are acceptable within the Wiki, as well as ~~examples of~~ the article types in which they should be used.		Detailed below are the two main 'tones' that are acceptable within the Wiki, as well as the article types in which they should be used.

	===Factual, non-accusatory, and legally safe===		===Factual, non-accusatory, and legally safe===
Line 47:		Line 47:
	Proper sourcing is fundamental to the Wiki's credibility and mission. This section provides guidance on evaluating, weighting, and citing different types of sources.		Proper sourcing is fundamental to the Wiki's credibility and mission. This section provides guidance on evaluating, weighting, and citing different types of sources.

	=== Source hierarchy and reliability ===		===Source hierarchy and reliability===
	Sources should be weighted according to their reliability and authority:		Sources should be weighted according to their reliability and authority:

	# '''Highest reliability'''		#'''Highest reliability'''
	#* Court decisions, regulatory findings, and official government documents		#*Court decisions, regulatory findings, and official government documents
	#* Peer-reviewed academic journals and research publications		#*Peer-reviewed academic journals and research publications
	#* Official company documents and statements (for establishing claims, not for establishing facts)		#*Official company documents and statements (for establishing claims, not for establishing facts)
	#* Primary source documents (contracts, terms of service, etc.)		#*Primary source documents (contracts, terms of service, etc.)
	# '''High reliability'''		#'''High reliability'''
	#* Major established news organizations with strong fact-checking processes		#*Major established news organizations with strong fact-checking processes
	#* Industry publications with editorial standards		#*Industry publications with editorial standards
	#* Specialist blogs with established expertise and reputation		#*Specialist blogs with established expertise and reputation
	#* Technical documentation from reputable organizations		#*Technical documentation from reputable organizations
	# '''Medium reliability'''		#'''Medium reliability'''
	#* Books published by reputable publishers		#*Books published by reputable publishers
	#* Industry analysis that is not peer-reviewed		#*Industry analysis that is not peer-reviewed
	#* Statements from consumer advocacy organizations		#*Statements from consumer advocacy organizations
	#* Technical explanations from recognized experts		#*Technical explanations from recognized experts
	# '''Lower reliability''' (use with caution and additional verification)		#'''Lower reliability''' (use with caution and additional verification)
	#* Social media posts (even from verified accounts)		#*Social media posts (even from verified accounts)
	#* Forums and community discussions		#*Forums and community discussions
	#* Legal statements from lawyers of a party to an event		#*Legal statements from lawyers of a party to an event
	#* Personal blogs without established credibilityClaims sourced anonymously (see below)		#*Personal blogs without established credibilityClaims sourced anonymously (see below)

	=== Handling anonymous sources and vague attributions ===		===Handling anonymous sources and vague attributions===
	Phrases like "a person familiar with the matter" and "on information and belief" require careful handling:		Phrases like "a person familiar with the matter" and "on information and belief" require careful handling:

	* Claims attributed to anonymous sources should never stand alone as the sole basis for significant allegations against companies or individuals		*Claims attributed to anonymous sources should never stand alone as the sole basis for significant allegations against companies or individuals
	* When citing reporting that uses anonymous sources, clearly indicate this in your citation: "According to The New York Times, which cited 'people familiar with the matter,'..."		*When citing reporting that uses anonymous sources, clearly indicate this in your citation: "According to The New York Times, which cited 'people familiar with the matter,'..."
	* Anonymous source claims should be treated as significantly less reliable than on-the-record statements		*Anonymous source claims should be treated as significantly less reliable than on-the-record statements
	* When multiple reputable publications independently verify information with their own anonymous sources, this increases reliability but still requires caution		*When multiple reputable publications independently verify information with their own anonymous sources, this increases reliability but still requires caution
	* Information from anonymous sources should be presented as claims rather than established facts		*Information from anonymous sources should be presented as claims rather than established facts

	'''Red flags''' that should prompt additional scrutiny:		'''Red flags''' that should prompt additional scrutiny:

	* Claims that seem designed primarily to generate controversy		*Claims that seem designed primarily to generate controversy
	* Information that only comes from a single anonymous source		*Information that only comes from a single anonymous source
	* Multiple outlets citing the same original anonymous source		*Multiple outlets citing the same original anonymous source
	* Allegations that remain unsubstantiated even after significant time has passed		*Allegations that remain unsubstantiated even after significant time has passed
	* Claims that contradict documented evidence or on-the-record statements		*Claims that contradict documented evidence or on-the-record statements

	=== Balancing perspectives and due weight ===		===Balancing perspectives and due weight===

	* Represent viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources		*Represent viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources
	* Do not give undue weight to fringe theories or minority viewpoints		*Do not give undue weight to fringe theories or minority viewpoints
	* When presenting controversial topics, ensure that mainstream perspectives are adequately represented		*When presenting controversial topics, ensure that mainstream perspectives are adequately represented
	* When reporting on disputes, ensure that all major parties' positions are fairly represented		*When reporting on disputes, ensure that all major parties' positions are fairly represented
	* Avoid creating false equivalence between positions that have different levels of support		*Avoid creating false equivalence between positions that have different levels of support

	=== Handling conflicting information ===		===Handling conflicting information===
	When reliable sources conflict:		When reliable sources conflict:

	* Acknowledge the conflict explicitly		*Acknowledge the conflict explicitly
	* Give preference to more recent information when appropriate		*Give preference to more recent information when appropriate
	* Give preference to more specialized or authoritative sources on the specific topic		*Give preference to more specialized or authoritative sources on the specific topic
	* Present multiple perspectives when the conflict represents genuine expert disagreement		*Present multiple perspectives when the conflict represents genuine expert disagreement
	* Avoid taking sides in ongoing disputes; instead, describe the differing positions		*Avoid taking sides in ongoing disputes; instead, describe the differing positions

	=== Source transparency ===		===Source transparency===

	* Wiki contributors should be able to verify sources		*Wiki contributors should be able to verify sources
	* Avoid citing sources that are not publicly accessible		*Avoid citing sources that are not publicly accessible
	* If utilizing paywalled content, provide sufficient information for others to locate it (archive links are often useful here)		*If utilizing paywalled content, provide sufficient information for others to locate it (archive links are often useful here)

	=== Sourcing standards ===		===Sourcing standards===
	We hold ourselves to higher standards than the individuals and companies we report on:		We hold ourselves to higher standards than the individuals and companies we report on:

	* Never lower your sourcing standards because of personal conviction about a topic		*Never lower your sourcing standards because of personal conviction about a topic
	* Do not use the Wiki to advance personal vendettas or agendas		*Do not use the Wiki to advance personal vendettas or agendas
	* Recognize that unsubstantiated claims can cause real harm		*Recognize that unsubstantiated claims can cause real harm
	* Remember that our credibility depends on rigorous adherence to these guidelines		*Remember that our credibility depends on rigorous adherence to these guidelines

	By following these guidelines on appropriate sourcing, we maintain the Wiki's integrity as a reliable resource for consumer protection information and advocacy.		By following these guidelines on appropriate sourcing, we maintain the Wiki's integrity as a reliable resource for consumer protection information and advocacy.

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:54, 27 January 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
	== Use of tone ==		==Use of tone==
	Detailed below are the two main 'tones' that are acceptable within the Wiki, as well as examples of the article types in which they should be used.		Detailed below are the two main 'tones' that are acceptable within the Wiki, as well as examples of the article types in which they should be used.

	=== Factual, non-accusatory, and legally safe ===		===Factual, non-accusatory, and legally safe===

	* Factual statements in articles should only be made where they directly reference a source. Direct inferences from these statements may be made, in a non-accusatory manner.		*Factual statements in articles should only be made where they directly reference a source. Direct inferences from these statements may be made, in a non-accusatory manner.
	* Source commentators often bring opinions, rants, and diatribes that add commentary & entertainment value; that is for their content. This is a repository of factual information. To be taken seriously, it must avoid coming off as the expression of an individual's personality.		*Source commentators often bring opinions, rants, and diatribes that add commentary & entertainment value; that is for their content. This is a repository of factual information. To be taken seriously, it must avoid coming off as the expression of an individual's personality.
	* Articles should not include language directly condemning specific companies or named individuals. Instead, this should be achieved by citing others – ‘it has been claimed that this practice amounts to x or y’, and by use of qualifiers ‘This shares characteristics with x’.		*Articles should not include language directly condemning specific companies or named individuals. Instead, this should be achieved by citing others – ‘it has been claimed that this practice amounts to x or y’, and by use of qualifiers ‘This shares characteristics with x’.

	* No attribution of malice to the subjects of criticism, unless such malice has been established in a legal context or by a legitimate regulatory body. Even then, it should always be stated indirectly: 'The U.S. Supreme Court found that Company X...', rather than 'Company X did...'. Be sure to link the appropriate case or opinion using the Wiki's <code><nowiki><ref></nowiki></code> and <code><nowiki><references /></nowiki></code> tags.		*No attribution of malice to the subjects of criticism, unless such malice has been established in a legal context or by a legitimate regulatory body. Even then, it should always be stated indirectly: 'The U.S. Supreme Court found that Company X...', rather than 'Company X did...'. Be sure to link the appropriate case or opinion using the Wiki's <code><nowiki><ref></nowiki></code> and <code><nowiki><references /></nowiki></code> tags.
	* '''This will be the appropriate tone for all non-theme articles.'''		*'''This will be the appropriate tone for all non-theme articles.'''

	=== ~~'Nice Louis'~~ ===		===Persuasive, but professional===

	* The way ~~Louis would~~ speak in a Senate hearing. Passionate advocacy, but avoiding strong language, or causing unnecessary offense. Where argumentation is used, it is clear and direct.		*The way one might speak in a Senate hearing, when lobbying for change. Passionate advocacy, but avoiding strong language, or causing unnecessary offense. Where argumentation is used, it is clear and direct.
	* No direct attacks on named individuals or companies, but likely to be strong condemnation of specific practices, while citing the companies that do them. Malice may be attributed to bad and proven offenders, in a formal and calm manner.		*No direct attacks on named individuals or companies, but likely to be strong condemnation of specific practices, while citing the companies that do them. Malice may be attributed to bad and proven offenders, in a formal and calm manner.
	* This is the appropriate tone for explanatory theme articles which cover larger issues relating to consumer protection and is not specifically related to individual practices by individual companies, except where these are used as examples.		*This is the appropriate tone for explanatory theme articles which cover larger issues relating to consumer protection and is not specifically related to individual practices by individual companies, except where these are used as examples.
	* '''This tone is not appropriate for the more factual accounts expected of individual Incidents, and should instead be reserved for Theme articles.'''		*'''This tone is not appropriate for the more factual accounts expected of individual Incidents, and should instead be reserved for Theme articles.'''

	Minor revisions may be made to these guidelines from time to time, but they are expected to remain consistent with the Mission Statement, and the broad rules of thumb established here.		Minor revisions may be made to these guidelines from time to time, but they are expected to remain consistent with the Mission Statement, and the broad rules of thumb established here.

	==== The 'Granny rule' (or, the 'Senator rule') ====		====The 'Granny rule' (or, the 'Senator rule')====
	The Wiki aims to be a widely accessible source where the general consumer can learn about the issues that affect them, and where relevant regulatory or political figures can be directed for a full explanation of the issues they have sight over. In general, a good rule of thumb to use when writing for the Wiki will be 'would I be comfortable showing this article to my grandmother?'		The Wiki aims to be a widely accessible source where the general consumer can learn about the issues that affect them, and where relevant regulatory or political figures can be directed for a full explanation of the issues they have sight over. In general, a good rule of thumb to use when writing for the Wiki will be 'would I be comfortable showing this article to my grandmother?'

	This has two main implications:		This has two main implications:

	* '''Avoid using inflammatory language.''' This includes quotations: swear words should be censored, and where a supporting quotation is required for an article, writers should try to choose ones that convey the relevant information without appearing combative.		*'''Avoid using inflammatory language.''' This includes quotations: swear words should be censored, and where a supporting quotation is required for an article, writers should try to choose ones that convey the relevant information without appearing combative.
	* '''Avoid unnecessary technical detail.''' This is not a tech Wiki, and as far as possible, writers should avoid diving into technological details. Where technical explanations are required to properly articulate the events of an Incident (for example, describing the events of the Honey scandal would require an explanation of site tracking via links, and Cookies), care should be taken to ensure that they are as accessible as possible. The use of jargon should be avoided, and technical terms should be defined in each article where they appear.		*'''Avoid unnecessary technical detail.''' This is not a tech Wiki, and as far as possible, writers should avoid diving into technological details. Where technical explanations are required to properly articulate the events of an Incident (for example, describing the events of the Honey scandal would require an explanation of site tracking via links, and Cookies), care should be taken to ensure that they are as accessible as possible. The use of jargon should be avoided, and technical terms should be defined in each article where they appear.

	'''Examples of unacceptable content includes:'''		'''Examples of unacceptable content includes:'''

	* Strong and unfiltered language		*Strong and unfiltered language
	* Deep dives into the technical functionality of a product at the center of an Incident		*Deep dives into the technical functionality of a product at the center of an Incident
	* Unsourced 'facts', and excessive use of disreputable sources		*Unsourced 'facts', and excessive use of disreputable sources
	* The tone and language Louis might use in a rant video		*The tone and language Louis might use in a rant video
	* Direct insults to specific individuals or companies, or direct attribution of malice to said individuals or companies		*Direct insults to specific individuals or companies, or direct attribution of malice to said individuals or companies
	* This Wiki is not for "''Pissed off Louis"'' - that's for YouTube, and has no place here		*This Wiki is not for "''Pissed off Louis"'' - that's for YouTube, and has no place here

	'''We will be especially vigilant against potentially harmful content, and take strong action against users who:'''		'''We will be especially vigilant against potentially harmful content, and take strong action against users who:'''

	* Advocate for direct action against malicious companies or individuals within articles themselves		*Advocate for direct action against malicious companies or individuals within articles themselves
	* Add false or misleading information to the Wiki, particularly that which may be damaging to companies or individuals		*Add false or misleading information to the Wiki, particularly that which may be damaging to companies or individuals
	* Invent sources or quotes		*Invent sources or quotes
	* Write articles which feature a blasé attitude toward the expression of extremely strong, or even violent, sentiment towards named individuals and companies		*Write articles which feature a blasé attitude toward the expression of extremely strong, or even violent, sentiment towards named individuals and companies

	== Appropriate use of sources ==		==Appropriate use of sources==
	[This section is to be an adaptation of [[Anonymity & Vagueness in Citations]], but that adaptation will happen tomorrow]		[This section is to be an adaptation of [[Anonymity & Vagueness in Citations]], but that adaptation will happen tomorrow]

	== Editorial Q&As ==		==Editorial Q&As==

	===== Is it acceptable to, in an article detailing the faults with a particular product, direct users towards alternative products that do not share these issues? =====		=====Is it acceptable to, in an article detailing the faults with a particular product, direct users towards alternative products that do not share these issues?=====
	This Wiki is not a place for product recommendations, and cannot be turned into a place for sneaky guerilla advertising, or the promotion of contributors' pet projects.		This Wiki is not a place for product recommendations, and cannot be turned into a place for sneaky guerilla advertising, or the promotion of contributors' pet projects.

	'''The only acceptable reason to include a product in an article that is not focused on said product, is to directly demonstrate that an anti-consumer practice is unnecessary'''. This exception is made in order to combat the way that unscrupulous companies will attempt to muddy the water, by claiming that their practices are necessary for the product to be viable. We do not want a company to be able to defend a practice as ''"necessary"'' on the basis of made-up justifications of economic viability or legal necessity, and as such it is acceptable to mention a competing product or business, ONLY for the purpose of comparing & contrasting how another business in the same space is able to provide the product or service without screwing the customer.		'''The only acceptable reason to include a product in an article that is not focused on said product, is to directly demonstrate that an anti-consumer practice is unnecessary'''. This exception is made in order to combat the way that unscrupulous companies will attempt to muddy the water, by claiming that their practices are necessary for the product to be viable. We do not want a company to be able to defend a practice as ''"necessary"'' on the basis of made-up justifications of economic viability or legal necessity, and as such it is acceptable to mention a competing product or business, ONLY for the purpose of comparing & contrasting how another business in the same space is able to provide the product or service without screwing the customer.

	* If a company says ''"the only way we can offer a $500 OLED television is by selling your personal data"'': it would be acceptable to point to a company that does not include such terms in their EULA/TOS, and which provides the same product at the same price point.		*If a company says ''"the only way we can offer a $500 OLED television is by selling your personal data"'': it would be acceptable to point to a company that does not include such terms in their EULA/TOS, and which provides the same product at the same price point.
	* If a company says ''"we cannot make xyz repair information available due to laws regarding consumer safety":'' it is acceptable to point to another company in that same industry, who provide such repair information, without legal consequence.		*If a company says ''"we cannot make xyz repair information available due to laws regarding consumer safety":'' it is acceptable to point to another company in that same industry, who provide such repair information, without legal consequence.

	===== I'm interested in writing an article about an issue which only really affects my (non-US) country... Is that ok to include in the Wiki? =====		=====I'm interested in writing an article about an issue which only really affects my (non-US) country... Is that ok to include in the Wiki?=====
	'''Absolutely!''' Provided it meets all the criteria, and is written in English, there are no restrictions on the location in which an incident has occurred, or a company is based.		'''Absolutely!''' Provided it meets all the criteria, and is written in English, there are no restrictions on the location in which an incident has occurred, or a company is based.

	[[Category:CAT]]		[[Category:CAT]]