Consumer Rights Wiki:Verifiability

All content on the Consumer Rights Wiki must be verified by presence of a citation in the article. That means whenever you assert something as true (ex. Samsung requiring a subscription to display pictures on a TV they sell) requires an inline citation. The corresponding citation for the example would look like this: .

Ideally while editing, sources are introduced when new content is added to this wiki. If you see content that should have a citation, yet doesn't, please use the {{citation needed}} template.

Reliable sources

What counts as a reliable source

Sources should be weighted according to their reliability and authority:

1. Highest reliability (Use these first)
   • Court decisions, regulatory findings, and official government documents
   • Peer-reviewed academic journals and research publications
   • Official company documents and statements (for establishing claims, not for establishing facts)
   • Primary source documents (contracts, terms of service, etc.)
2. High reliability
   • Major established news organizations with strong fact-checking processes
   • Industry publications with editorial standards
   • Specialist blogs with established expertise and reputation
   • Videos from a reputable specialist channel
   • Technical documentation from reputable organizations
3. Medium reliability
   • Books published by reputable publishers
   • Industry analysis that is not peer-reviewed
   • Statements from consumer advocacy organizations
   • Videos from a reputable general interest or non-specialist channel
   • Technical explanations from recognized experts

What should be used with caution

1. Lower reliability (These should be avoided and only used for the likes of consumer sentiment and other low-stakes situations)
   • Social media posts (even from verified accounts)
   • Forums and community discussions
   • Legal statements from lawyers of a party to an event
   • Personal blogs without established credibility
   • Videos from a disreputable source (e.g. a low-effort content farm)
   • Claims sourced anonymously (see below)
2. No reliability (These are unable to be used)
   • Other wikis (even Wikipedia doesn’t source itself)
   • AI content farms (these are no better than citing ChatGPT)

How to make an inline citation

In visual editor, click on "insert", "more", then Citation. Alternatively you can press Control-Shift-K. Then click through to "Manual" and click "Web". Then insert all relevant details, but at minimum include a link to the article and the title of the article.

In source editor, paste in the following wikitext:

<ref>
  {{cite web
  |last= 
  |first=  
  |title=
  |url= 
  |website=
  |date=
  |access-date=
  }}</ref>

Then fill in the information you have, with the url and title fields being mandatory.

Use of sources

Handling anonymous sources and vague attributions

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
• 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
• 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

Red flags that should prompt additional scrutiny:

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

Balancing perspectives and due weight

• Represent viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources
• Do not give undue weight to fringe theories or minority viewpoints
• When presenting controversial topics, ensure that mainstream perspectives are adequately 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

Handling conflicting information

When reliable sources conflict:

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

Source transparency

• Wiki contributors should be able to verify sources
• 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)

Sourcing standards

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
• Do not use the Wiki to advance personal vendettas or agendas
• Recognize that unsubstantiated claims can cause real harm
• 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.