Consumer Action Taskforce:Wiki content policies: Difference between revisions
Changes a couple of bits of formatting, and reworded a sentence or two |
CAT -> CRW |
||
| (8 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
While our ultimate goal is to establish a comprehensive set of policies on the | [[Category:CAT]] | ||
While our ultimate goal is to establish a comprehensive set of policies on the Consumer Rights Wiki, there are numerous areas where our approach aligns with Wikipedia's. This document outlines how we adapt Wikipedia's three primary content policies — [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view|Neutral Point of View (NPOV)]], [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:Verifiability|Verifiability]], and [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:No_original_research|No Original Research]] — and highlights both similarities and differences in our approach. | |||
The key distinction between Wikipedia's approach and our own is that our core mission includes the promotion of a consumer rights agenda, in addition to the accurate documentation and presentation of information. Fully adopting certain Wikipedia policies, such as NPOV, would conflict with our mission to advocate for consumer rights. Nevertheless, we aim to be a reliable source of information and avoid misrepresenting the events we cover. | The key distinction between Wikipedia's approach and our own is that [[Mission statement|our core mission]] includes the promotion of a consumer rights agenda, in addition to the accurate documentation and presentation of information. Fully adopting certain Wikipedia policies, such as NPOV, would conflict with our mission to advocate for consumer rights. Nevertheless, we aim to be a reliable source of information and avoid misrepresenting the events we cover. | ||
==Neutral Point Of View== | ==Neutral Point Of View== | ||
| Line 7: | Line 8: | ||
The NPOV principle will be applied as follows: | The NPOV principle will be applied as follows: | ||
* For theme articles, NPOV can be largely set aside. In these articles, the Wiki’s voice can clearly take a stance on the issue at hand. This does not mean disregarding tone guidelines (see: tone guidelines), omitting counter-arguments, or failing to cite facts. It simply allows for the use of direct statements like ‘X is a major issue facing consumers today’ without needing to cite a source (e.g., it is unnecessary to write: ‘Y stated in a video that X is a major issue facing consumers today’). An example of a theme article that meets these criteria can be found [here]. | *For theme articles, NPOV can be largely set aside. In these articles, the Wiki’s voice can clearly take a stance on the issue at hand. This does not mean disregarding tone guidelines (see: tone guidelines), omitting counter-arguments, or failing to cite facts. It simply allows for the use of direct statements like ‘X is a major issue facing consumers today’ without needing to cite a source (e.g., it is unnecessary to write: ‘Y stated in a video that X is a major issue facing consumers today’). An example of a theme article that meets these criteria can be found [here]. | ||
* For Tier 2 and 3 articles, NPOV will be fully implemented. To maintain credibility as a repository of accurate information, it is crucial that consumer protection-related incidents are documented accurately and fairly. | *For Tier 2 and 3 articles, NPOV will be fully implemented. To maintain credibility as a repository of accurate information, it is crucial that consumer protection-related incidents are documented accurately and fairly. | ||
It is beneficial to review Wikipedia’s guidance on the concept of [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:UNDUE|undue weight]], which explain how we can highlight anti-consumer practices while maintaining NPOV. If there is clear and overwhelming evidence of a company's anti-consumer behavior, and the only opposition is a weak rebuttal from the company, presenting both viewpoints equally would create a false balance and give undue weight to the company's argument. | It is beneficial to review Wikipedia’s guidance on the concept of [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:UNDUE|undue weight]], which explain how we can highlight anti-consumer practices while maintaining NPOV. If there is clear and overwhelming evidence of a company's anti-consumer behavior, and the only opposition is a weak rebuttal from the company, presenting both viewpoints equally would create a false balance and give undue weight to the company's argument. | ||
| Line 24: | Line 25: | ||
This does not mean any source can be used. As a rule of thumb, any primary research source should meet at least one of these criteria: | This does not mean any source can be used. As a rule of thumb, any primary research source should meet at least one of these criteria: | ||
* Well-established and generally reliable. This refers to a source with a long track record of publishing information related to the article's topic and likely has an editorial or review process for its publications. | *Well-established and generally reliable. This refers to a source with a long track record of publishing information related to the article's topic and likely has an editorial or review process for its publications. | ||
* A source with deep expertise on the topic, stating something non-controversial within their field. For example, if an experienced TV repair technician claims that a specific TV model has a design flaw, and this assertion is unchallenged by peers, it can be accepted. | *A source with deep expertise on the topic, stating something non-controversial within their field. For example, if an experienced TV repair technician claims that a specific TV model has a design flaw, and this assertion is unchallenged by peers, it can be accepted. | ||
* A source indisputably linked to the topic. If a company issues a press release or an individual involved in an incident makes a statement, it can be cited as ‘Y responded to the event, stating…’, and this statement can be part of the core timeline of events within an incident. | *A source indisputably linked to the topic. If a company issues a press release or an individual involved in an incident makes a statement, it can be cited as ‘Y responded to the event, stating…’, and this statement can be part of the core timeline of events within an incident. | ||
When questioned about your choice of source, you should be confident in defending it as meeting these requirements and being a valuable source of information for the article. It is acceptable to leave some statements as ‘citation needed’, but excessive use will result in a page being marked ‘Needs additional verification’. | When questioned about your choice of source, you should be confident in defending it as meeting these requirements and being a valuable source of information for the article. It is acceptable to leave some statements as ‘citation needed’, but excessive use will result in a page being marked ‘Needs additional verification’. | ||