Consumer Rights Wiki:Inclusion guidelines - Revision history

Keith at 18:41, 30 May 2025

2025-05-30T18:41:00Z

Keith: added section on the concept of No Original Research

2025-05-30T18:39:50Z

added section on the concept of No Original Research

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:39, 30 May 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
	The line between systematic abuse of customers and an unlucky streak of bad customer experiences is blurry, and can be particularly hard to find for a user who’s just been on the receiving end of bad service. The following guidelines should help you determine whether a particular incident is appropriate for inclusion on the Wiki.		The line between systematic abuse of customers and an unlucky streak of bad customer experiences is blurry, and can be particularly hard to find for a user who’s just been on the receiving end of bad service. The following guidelines should help you determine whether a particular incident is appropriate for inclusion on the Wiki.

	== What makes something appropriate to record within the Wiki? ==		==What makes something appropriate to record within the Wiki?==

	===== An incident is to be included in the Wiki when one or both of the following is true: =====		=== An incident is to be included in the Wiki when one or both of the following is true: ===
			*It fits into the niche of "new" consumer protection - e.g., revocation of rights of ownership, or widespread changes of the terms of the sale. If it is only possible because of these new mechanisms of consumer abuse, then it can be included here. '''A story relating to a single customer, or a small handful of customers, only rises to the level of being included here if it is relevant to "modern" consumer protection.''' Even if it only affected a single customer, the very fact that ''these things can happen in the first place'' means that they need to be documented.
			*It is a large-scale consumer abuse. '''An old-style consumer protection story only belongs here if it is a systemic practice that is happening to a large group of people.''' For example, consider how Intel denied customer warranty replacements for its 14th generation CPUs. This practice, even if it is an ''"old"'' style anti-consumer practice (selling a defective product, and ignoring warranties en masse), is something that is systemic & widespread, beyond an individual anecdotal experience. Another relevant example is Asus' warranty policies here.

	* It fits into the ~~niche of "new" consumer~~ protection ~~- e.g., revocation of rights of ownership, or widespread changes of~~ the ~~terms~~ of the ~~sale. If it~~ is ~~only possible because of these new mechanisms of consumer abuse, then it can be included here.~~ ''~~'A story relating to a single customer, or a small handful of customers, only rises to the level of being included here if it is relevant to~~ "~~modern~~" ~~consumer protection.~~''' ~~Even if it only affected a single customer, the very fact that~~ '~~'these things can happen in the first place~~'' ~~means that they need to be documented~~.		See the [[Mission statement#Consumer protection has changed\|description at the beginning of the Mission Statement]] to learn what is meant by ''"new"'' and ''"old"'' consumer issues.
	* It is a large-scale consumer abuse. '''An ~~old-style consumer protection story only belongs here if it is a systemic practice that is happening to a large group~~ of ~~people.~~''' For ~~example~~, ~~consider how Intel denied customer warranty replacements for its 14th generation CPUs. This practice~~, ~~even if it is an~~ ''~~"old"~~'' ~~style anti~~-~~consumer practice (selling a defective product~~, and ~~ignoring warranties en masse), is something that is systemic & widespread, beyond an individual anecdotal experience. Another relevant example is Asus' warranty policies here~~.
			=== '''An incident must have been reported on in at least some form of media''' ===
			For a full breakdown of sourcing requirements, please see our [[Consumer Rights Wiki:Wiki content policies\|content policies]], but at a glance the rules are as follows:

			'''You should not submit your own research or experience to the Wiki,''' unless it has been sufficiently reported on by external sources, which may include legacy or online media, so long as they have some credibility. This policy exists in order to prevent the Wiki from becoming a non-credible place where everyone posts their pet theories or experiences, and other users are unable to verify the information.

	~~See~~ the ~~[[Mission statement#Consumer protection~~ has ~~changed\|description at the beginning~~ of the ~~Mission Statement]]~~ to ~~learn what is meant~~ by ~~''"new"'' and ''"old"'' consumer issues~~.		This means that if you are the person who has gathered all of the evidence for a particular story, then you should aim to have that story verified and covered by one or multiple media sources before including it in the Wiki.

	===== A practice does not belong here if it belongs in a Yelp review~~: ==~~===		=== A practice does not belong here if it belongs in a Yelp review ===
	Louis had a bad experience with a bad technician, salesman, and service writer at Caliber Collision. They lied on timeframes, and they did a poor job of installing new parts on his car. This, however, is not to be included in the Wiki.		Louis had a bad experience with a bad technician, salesman, and service writer at Caliber Collision. They lied on timeframes, and they did a poor job of installing new parts on his car. This, however, is not to be included in the Wiki.

	Instead, this is an issue to be settled elsewhere, by contacting the local consumer protection/licensing bureau (for instance, Department of Consumer Affairs in New York City), and by providing feedback on Yelp or Google.		Instead, this is an issue to be settled elsewhere, by contacting the local consumer protection/licensing bureau (for instance, Department of Consumer Affairs in New York City), and by providing feedback on Yelp or Google.

	# This does not fit any of the categories above of removing privacy, rights of ownership, taking away the right to repair, or forcing anyone into a terms of service agreement in a sneaky way.		#This does not fit any of the categories above of removing privacy, rights of ownership, taking away the right to repair, or forcing anyone into a terms of service agreement in a sneaky way.
	# There is no evidence that what they did is systemically pushed onto all customers.		#There is no evidence that what they did is systemically pushed onto all customers.

	===== Hyper-local, run-of-the-mill issues do not belong here~~. ==~~===		=== Hyper-local, run-of-the-mill issues do not belong here ===
	A plumber who repeatedly ghosts work, disappears & sets up a new company when people go looking for a refund is not worthy of report here. The story of Eugene the contractor belongs on a personal blog, Yelp, and Google. Reports on his behavior should be made to local, city, state, and federal authorities where they apply. A contractor who sets up a new company any time someone looks for a refund after being ripped off may be an anti-consumer scammer, and it may well be that knowing about him would prevent future people from getting scammed. However, ''this is simply too small and local to warrant inclusion in a Wiki whose purpose is'' ''specifically to inform consumers about the modern landscape of consumer protection issues''.		A plumber who repeatedly ghosts work, disappears & sets up a new company when people go looking for a refund is not worthy of report here. The story of Eugene the contractor belongs on a personal blog, Yelp, and Google. Reports on his behavior should be made to local, city, state, and federal authorities where they apply. A contractor who sets up a new company any time someone looks for a refund after being ripped off may be an anti-consumer scammer, and it may well be that knowing about him would prevent future people from getting scammed. However, ''this is simply too small and local to warrant inclusion in a Wiki whose purpose is'' ''specifically to inform consumers about the modern landscape of consumer protection issues''.

	For information on the types of articles the Wiki is expected to contain, please see our [[Article Types]] page. For a quick guide on what you can do to help, please see our [[How to help]] guide!		For information on the types of articles the Wiki is expected to contain, please see our [[Article Types]] page. For a quick guide on what you can do to help, please see our [[How to help]] guide!

Keith: created page

2025-02-11T18:36:51Z

created page

New page

The line between systematic abuse of customers and an unlucky streak of bad customer experiences is blurry, and can be particularly hard to find for a user who’s just been on the receiving end of bad service. The following guidelines should help you determine whether a particular incident is appropriate for inclusion on the Wiki.

== What makes something appropriate to record within the Wiki? ==

===== An incident is to be included in the Wiki when one or both of the following is true: =====

* It fits into the niche of "new" consumer protection - e.g., revocation of rights of ownership, or widespread changes of the terms of the sale. If it is only possible because of these new mechanisms of consumer abuse, then it can be included here. '''A story relating to a single customer, or a small handful of customers, only rises to the level of being included here if it is relevant to "modern" consumer protection.''' Even if it only affected a single customer, the very fact that ''these things can happen in the first place'' means that they need to be documented.
* It is a large-scale consumer abuse. '''An old-style consumer protection story only belongs here if it is a systemic practice that is happening to a large group of people.''' For example, consider how Intel denied customer warranty replacements for its 14th generation CPUs. This practice, even if it is an ''"old"'' style anti-consumer practice (selling a defective product, and ignoring warranties en masse), is something that is systemic & widespread, beyond an individual anecdotal experience. Another relevant example is Asus' warranty policies here.

See the [[Mission statement#Consumer protection has changed|description at the beginning of the Mission Statement]] to learn what is meant by ''"new"'' and ''"old"'' consumer issues.

===== A practice does not belong here if it belongs in a Yelp review: =====
Louis had a bad experience with a bad technician, salesman, and service writer at Caliber Collision. They lied on timeframes, and they did a poor job of installing new parts on his car. This, however, is not to be included in the Wiki.

Instead, this is an issue to be settled elsewhere, by contacting the local consumer protection/licensing bureau (for instance, Department of Consumer Affairs in New York City), and by providing feedback on Yelp or Google.

# This does not fit any of the categories above of removing privacy, rights of ownership, taking away the right to repair, or forcing anyone into a terms of service agreement in a sneaky way.
# There is no evidence that what they did is systemically pushed onto all customers.

===== Hyper-local, run-of-the-mill issues do not belong here. =====
A plumber who repeatedly ghosts work, disappears & sets up a new company when people go looking for a refund is not worthy of report here. The story of Eugene the contractor belongs on a personal blog, Yelp, and Google. Reports on his behavior should be made to local, city, state, and federal authorities where they apply. A contractor who sets up a new company any time someone looks for a refund after being ripped off may be an anti-consumer scammer, and it may well be that knowing about him would prevent future people from getting scammed. However, ''this is simply too small and local to warrant inclusion in a Wiki whose purpose is'' ''specifically to inform consumers about the modern landscape of consumer protection issues''.

For information on the types of articles the Wiki is expected to contain, please see our [[Article Types]] page. For a quick guide on what you can do to help, please see our [[How to help]] guide!

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:41, 30 May 2025
Line 3:		Line 3:
	==What makes something appropriate to record within the Wiki?==		==What makes something appropriate to record within the Wiki?==

	=== An incident is to be included in the Wiki when one or both of the following is true: ===		===An incident is to be included in the Wiki when one or both of the following is true:===
	*It fits into the niche of "new" consumer protection - e.g., revocation of rights of ownership, or widespread changes of the terms of the sale. If it is only possible because of these new mechanisms of consumer abuse, then it can be included here. '''A story relating to a single customer, or a small handful of customers, only rises to the level of being included here if it is relevant to "modern" consumer protection.''' Even if it only affected a single customer, the very fact that ''these things can happen in the first place'' means that they need to be documented.		*It fits into the niche of "new" consumer protection - e.g., revocation of rights of ownership, or widespread changes of the terms of the sale. If it is only possible because of these new mechanisms of consumer abuse, then it can be included here. '''A story relating to a single customer, or a small handful of customers, only rises to the level of being included here if it is relevant to "modern" consumer protection.''' Even if it only affected a single customer, the very fact that ''these things can happen in the first place'' means that they need to be documented.
	*It is a large-scale consumer abuse. '''An old-style consumer protection story only belongs here if it is a systemic practice that is happening to a large group of people.''' For example, consider how Intel denied customer warranty replacements for its 14th generation CPUs. This practice, even if it is an ''"old"'' style anti-consumer practice (selling a defective product, and ignoring warranties en masse), is something that is systemic & widespread, beyond an individual anecdotal experience. Another relevant example is Asus' warranty policies here.		*It is a large-scale consumer abuse. '''An old-style consumer protection story only belongs here if it is a systemic practice that is happening to a large group of people.''' For example, consider how Intel denied customer warranty replacements for its 14th generation CPUs. This practice, even if it is an ''"old"'' style anti-consumer practice (selling a defective product, and ignoring warranties en masse), is something that is systemic & widespread, beyond an individual anecdotal experience. Another relevant example is Asus' warranty policies here.
Line 9:		Line 9:
	See the [[Mission statement#Consumer protection has changed\|description at the beginning of the Mission Statement]] to learn what is meant by ''"new"'' and ''"old"'' consumer issues.		See the [[Mission statement#Consumer protection has changed\|description at the beginning of the Mission Statement]] to learn what is meant by ''"new"'' and ''"old"'' consumer issues.

	=== '''An incident must have been reported on in at least some form of media''' ===		==='''An incident must have been reported on in at least some form of media'''===
	~~For a full breakdown of sourcing requirements, please see our [[Consumer Rights Wiki:Wiki content policies\|content policies]], but at a glance the rules are as follows:~~

	'''You should not submit your own research or experience to the Wiki,''' unless it has been sufficiently reported on by external sources, which may include legacy or online media, so long as they have some credibility. This policy exists in order to prevent the Wiki from becoming a non-credible place where everyone posts their pet theories or experiences, and other users are unable to verify the information.		'''You should not submit your own research or experience to the Wiki,''' unless it has been sufficiently reported on by external sources, which may include legacy or online media, so long as they have some credibility. This policy exists in order to prevent the Wiki from becoming a non-credible place where everyone posts their pet theories or experiences, and other users are unable to verify the information.

	This means that if you are the person who has gathered all of the evidence for a particular story, then you should aim to have that story verified and covered by one or multiple media sources before including it in the Wiki.		This means that if you are the person who has gathered all of the evidence for a particular story, then you should aim to have that story verified and covered by one or multiple media sources before including it in the Wiki.

	=== A practice does not belong here if it belongs in a Yelp review ===		For a full breakdown of sourcing requirements, please see our [[Consumer Rights Wiki:Wiki content policies\|content policies]].

			===A practice does not belong here if it belongs in a Yelp review===
	Louis had a bad experience with a bad technician, salesman, and service writer at Caliber Collision. They lied on timeframes, and they did a poor job of installing new parts on his car. This, however, is not to be included in the Wiki.		Louis had a bad experience with a bad technician, salesman, and service writer at Caliber Collision. They lied on timeframes, and they did a poor job of installing new parts on his car. This, however, is not to be included in the Wiki.

Line 24:		Line 24:
	#There is no evidence that what they did is systemically pushed onto all customers.		#There is no evidence that what they did is systemically pushed onto all customers.

	=== Hyper-local, run-of-the-mill issues do not belong here ===		===Hyper-local, run-of-the-mill issues do not belong here===
	A plumber who repeatedly ghosts work, disappears & sets up a new company when people go looking for a refund is not worthy of report here. The story of Eugene the contractor belongs on a personal blog, Yelp, and Google. Reports on his behavior should be made to local, city, state, and federal authorities where they apply. A contractor who sets up a new company any time someone looks for a refund after being ripped off may be an anti-consumer scammer, and it may well be that knowing about him would prevent future people from getting scammed. However, ''this is simply too small and local to warrant inclusion in a Wiki whose purpose is'' ''specifically to inform consumers about the modern landscape of consumer protection issues''.		A plumber who repeatedly ghosts work, disappears & sets up a new company when people go looking for a refund is not worthy of report here. The story of Eugene the contractor belongs on a personal blog, Yelp, and Google. Reports on his behavior should be made to local, city, state, and federal authorities where they apply. A contractor who sets up a new company any time someone looks for a refund after being ripped off may be an anti-consumer scammer, and it may well be that knowing about him would prevent future people from getting scammed. However, ''this is simply too small and local to warrant inclusion in a Wiki whose purpose is'' ''specifically to inform consumers about the modern landscape of consumer protection issues''.

	For information on the types of articles the Wiki is expected to contain, please see our [[Article Types]] page. For a quick guide on what you can do to help, please see our [[How to help]] guide!		For information on the types of articles the Wiki is expected to contain, please see our [[Article Types]] page. For a quick guide on what you can do to help, please see our [[How to help]] guide!