|
|
| (69 intermediate revisions by 14 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| = Mission statement = | | __NOTOC__ |
| | ===LOST AND LOOKING TO HELP? SEE: [[How to help|'''How to help''']]=== |
|
| |
|
| '''The mission of this wiki is to document a new generation of consumer exploitation that bears no resemblance to issues of the 1950s-1990s. Our focus are the issues that often go unnoticed by review sites, tech press, and traditional consumer protection publications.''' | | '''The mission of this Wiki is to document a new generation of consumer exploitation that bears no resemblance to issues of the 1950s-1990s. We focus on the issues that often go unnoticed by review sites, tech press, and traditional consumer protection publications.''' |
|
| |
|
| == Consumer protection - then vs. now == | | ==Consumer protection has changed== |
|
| |
|
| === Old consumer protection === | | ===What is "old" consumer protection?=== |
|
| |
|
| 30 years ago, consumer advocacy dealt with more visible problems: | | 30 years ago, consumer advocacy dealt with more visible problems: |
| # Unsafe products | | #Unsafe products |
| # Misleading labels | | #Misleading labels |
| # False advertising | | #Materially false advertising |
| # Bait & switch pricing | | #Bait & switch pricing |
| # Not delivering goods after payment | | #Not delivering goods after payment |
| # Lead in toys | | #Lead in toys |
| # Discrimination | | #Discrimination |
|
| |
|
| === New consumer protection === | | ===What is "new" consumer protection?=== |
|
| |
|
| Today's consumers face different forms of exploitation that strike at the heart of what it means to ''own'' something, are deliberately designed to be difficult to understand or resist. Above all, unlike the issues above, these issues are ''not even illegal''. | | Today's consumers face different forms of exploitation that strike at the heart of what it means to ''own'' something, and are deliberately designed to be difficult to understand or resist. Above all, unlike the issues above, these issues are usually ''not even illegal''. |
|
| |
|
| Modern businesses have mastered the art of silent control. They can: | | Modern businesses have perfected the art of subtle control. They are able to: |
| # Remotely disable products you “OWN” through cloud services. | | #Remotely deactivate products you "own" via cloud services. |
| # Collect personal data without meaningful disclosure & sell that data to others without legitimate consent. | | #Alter a purchased item into a significantly different version after the sale. |
| # Prevent you from cancelling their services by creating systems where signing up takes one click, but cancelling requires navigating an obstacle course of sending certified mail and endless phone trees. | | #Gather personal data without adequate disclosure and sell it without proper consent. |
| # Redefine the meaning of the word “purchase” and “own” on page 21 of an end user license agreement, creating legal justification for removing items you have “purchased” in your library. | | #Hinder service cancellation by designing systems where signing up is a single click, but canceling involves navigating a complex process of sending certified mail and enduring endless phone menus. |
| # Create willful barriers towards repair, leaving otherwise functional devices to die. | | #Change the definitions of "purchase" and "own" deep within an end user license agreement, providing legal grounds to remove items you have "purchased" from your library. |
| # Force you into forced arbitration by sending you an email and pretending that not replying to this email constitutes agreement to a new terms of service. | | #Intentionally create obstacles to repair, causing otherwise functional devices to become unusable. |
| | #Coerce you into forced arbitration by sending an email and assuming that not responding signifies agreement to new terms of service. |
|
| |
|
| Past consumer protection covered companies that broke '''existing''' laws. Modern consumer protection exists because we '''no longer have''' consumer protection laws, where companies exploit legal loopholes to trap their customers in unfavorable positions. They rely on complexity & fatigue to prevent resistance.
| | "Old" style consumer protection covers exposing and pursuing companies that break '''existing''' laws. Modern consumer protection efforts exist and are distinct, because '''the consumer protection laws that currently exist are not fit for purpose'''. Companies are able to exploit legal loopholes, or legally dubious strategies which are not met with meaningful consequences, to trap their customers in unfavorable positions. They rely on complexity & fatigue to prevent resistance. |
|
| |
|
| === Theme of modern consumer abuse issues ===
| | '''These abuses of the consumer have a common thread:''' |
| | *Take away the consumer's right to say '''"NO".''' |
| | *Take away the consumer's right of ''ownership.'' |
| | *Take away the consumer's right to privacy. |
|
| |
|
| These abuses of the consumer have a common thread:
| | ===How we're taking action=== |
| * Take away the consumer's right to say '''"NO"'''
| |
| * Take away the consumer's right of ''ownership''
| |
| * Take away the consumer's right to privacy.
| |
|
| |
|
| === Where we step in ===
| | This Wiki exists to document and expose these practices, making visible what companies work hard to keep obscure. By creating a centralized knowledge base of modern consumer exploitation tactics, we aim to help consumers understand how their rights are being systematically violated through technology, psychology, deliberately complex legal mechanisms, as well as the ineffective governmental bodies that allow it to happen. |
|
| |
|
| This wiki exists to document and expose these practices, making visible what companies work hard to keep obscure. By creating a centralized knowledge base of modern consumer exploitation tactics (aka, ''“how you’re getting fucked”''), we aim to help consumers understand how their rights are being systematically violated through technology, psychology, deliberately complex legal mechanisms, as well as the ineffective governmental bodies that allow it to happen.
| | '''Our goal is to bring clarity to these new practices that companies intentionally make opaque and to provide consumers with the information they need to recognize and fight back against new forms of exploitation.''' |
|
| |
|
| '''Our goal is to bring clarity to these new practices that companies intentionally make opaque, and to provide consumers with the information they need to recognize and fight back against new forms of exploitation.'''
| | ==How this Wiki will be used== |
|
| |
|
| == How this wiki will be used ==
| | It is expected that the Wiki will be contributed to by a wide variety of people, both technical and non-technical, who share a desire to see consumers be treated more fairly. It will enable this by being quick and easy to contribute to, with a low barrier to entry for contributors. This barrier to entry should be maintained at the minimum level necessary to combat spam and bad actors. |
|
| |
|
| It is expected that the wiki will be contributed to by a wide variety of people, both technical and non-technical, who share a desire to see consumers be treated more fairly. It should enable this by being quick and easy to contribute to.
| | The base focus of the Wiki is expected to be on issues frequently discussed on Louis Rossmann’s channel, and those adjacent to the right-to-repair movement, though this may grow to a more all-encompassing definition of consumer protection over time. The minimum desired goal is to have a site that records, in a helpful and searchable format, the specific issues and topics that have been discussed on Louis’ channel over the years, with factual citations. |
|
| |
|
| The base focus of the wiki is expected to be on issues frequently discussed on Louis Rossmann’s channel, and those adjacent to the right-to-repair movement, though this may grow to a more all-encompassing definition of consumer protection over time. The minimum desired goal is to have a site which records, in a helpful and searchable format, the specific issues and topics which have been discussed on Louis’ channel over the years, with factual citations.
| | Ideally, it should aim to grow and act as a one-stop-shop, where a user can discover how the companies they buy products from are working against their interests behind the scenes, and what they can do about it. It should serve to highlight how consumer rights have been eroded over the years and give people the knowledge and tools to fight back against the tide. It will feature factual documentation relating to specific instances of consumer abuse, articles that track the consumer-protection-related activities of large companies and certain individuals, as well as articles and content which serve to educate users about the different forms of consumer abuse. |
|
| |
|
| It should act as a one-stop-shop, where a user can discover how the companies they buy products from are working behind the scenes to screw them, and what they can do about it. It should serve to highlight how consumer rights have been eroded over the years, and give people the knowledge and tools to fight back against the tide.
| | The Wiki will aim to be viewed as a legitimate source that, though not perfect, can generally be relied upon to provide accurate information, in a similar vein to other Wiki-projects. '''It is crucial for the Wiki to take steps to avoid causing harassment or financial harm to companies as a result of false or misleading information. It will enable this by attracting an excellent team of moderators, and giving them powerful and effective tools to combat spam and misinformation. If problems arise in this area, we will treat them with the utmost seriousness, as they may jeopardize the entire project.''' |
|
| |
|
| It should aim to be viewed as a legitimate source which, though not perfect, can generally be relied upon to provide accurate information (similarly to Wikipedia). '''It must take steps to avoid causing harassment or financial harm to companies as a result of false or misleading information. It should enable this by attracting an excellent team of moderators, and giving them powerful and effective tools to combat spam and misinformation.'''
| | In seeking this legitimacy, it is important that the appropriate tone is used. The exact tone that is appropriate for a given article will be defined in the Editorial Guidelines (along with the range of acceptable tones for the wiki as a whole) and will vary based on the type of article. In general, we will aim for professionalism. A project like this cannot obtain or maintain legitimacy if every article comes across as being written by someone with an axe to grind or by someone who is more interested in proving a point than the truth. Please see the [[Wiki Content Policies]] page for more guidance here, as well as the [[Consumer Action Taskforce:Editorial guidelines|Editorial guidelines]] page. |
|
| |
|
| ''[Insert statements on the tone the wiki should aim to convey things in, once this is decided]''
| | The full, official, collection of CAT Wiki policies can be found [[Consumer Action Taskforce:CAT policy index|here]]. This page can also be accessed via the sidebar. |
| | | [[Category:CAT]] |
| === What should & shouldn't be included here ===
| |
| | |
| ==== Comparing companies & products ====
| |
| | |
| '''Questions:'''
| |
| | |
| '''Is it acceptable to, in an article detailing the faults with a particular product, direct users towards alternative products which do not share these issues?'''
| |
| | |
| ''guy who wrote this in discord:''
| |
| | |
| I think this is a double-edged sword – it aligns with the mission of inflicting financial penalties on bad companies and rewarding good companies/projects, but it opens the door to abuse, people recommending their own product at someone else’s expense, and vicious arguments in the talk page over exactly which user’s pet f/oss project should be recommended instead.
| |
| | |
| ''louis thoughts:''
| |
| | |
| I think this should be done to the extent necessary to combat fear, uncertainty, and doubt. I 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.
| |
| | |
| I am okay with another product being mentioned for the purposes of comparing & contrasting how another business in the same space is able to provide the product or service without screwing the customer.
| |
| | |
| * i.e., if a company says ''"the only way we can offer a $500 OLED television is by selling your personal data"'': it would be okay to point to a company that does not include such terms in their EULA/TOS that 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"'' - point to a company in that same industry providing repair parts/information.
| |
| | |
| ==== What makes something worth an article in this wiki? ====
| |
| | |
| The line between systematic abuse of customers and an unlucky streak of bad customer experiences is a blurry line, which will be particularly hard for a user who’s just been on the receiving end of bad service to navigate.
| |
| | |
| '''An individual story only rises to the level of being included here if it fits the specific elements of modern consumer protection. An old-style consumer protection story only belongs here if it is a systemic practice that is happening to a large group of people.''' See the description at the beginning to learn what is meant by ''"modern"'' vs. ''"old style"''.
| |
| | |
| ===== A practice is bad enough to warrant inclusion when one of the following is true: =====
| |
| | |
| It fits into the niche of "new" consumer protection - i.e., widespread revocation of rights of ownership, widespread changes of the terms of the sale. Even a [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=670rwHz1WV8 sock company forcing forced arbitration on its users via an email] is worth inclusion because '''it is being inflicted on all users''', as well as fitting under the umbrella of these new issues that have been foregone by modern consumer protection, and it affects EVERY CUSTOMER of that company.
| |
| | |
| Take what Intel was doing by denying customers warranty replacements on the 14th gen Intel CPUs. This practice, even if it is ''"old"'' style consumer protection (defective product w/ mass ignoring of warranties), is something that is systemic & widespread, beyond an individual anecdotal experience. Take [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pMrssIrKcY Asus' warranty policies here] or [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6vQlvefGxk Intel's 14th gen oxidation & avoidance of warranty].
| |
| | |
| ===== A practice does not belong here if it belongs in a Yelp review: =====
| |
| | |
| I had a [https://www.google.com/maps/uv?pb=!1s0x8644cbf181de7b69%3A0x89b66cb17b9bcd78!3m1!7e115!5sGoogle%20Search!15sCgIgAQ&cr=lr_f3&hl=en&imagekey=!1e10!2sAF1QipP24WKlhz4nCCR4pu4lgIKn6l2FLn0Jo6bBu62P&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwib37GH49WKAxU07ckDHeI7DT8Q9fkHKAB6BAgBEFk 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 my car.
| |
| | |
| This is an issue to be settled between my local consumer protection/licensing bureau that oversees the licensing of small businesses (for instance, [https://www.nyc.gov/site/dca/index.page Department of Consumer Affairs in New York City]), and to be reviewed on Yelp or Google. | |
| | |
| # This does not fit any of the categories above of removing privacy, rights of ownership, taking away my right to repair, or forcing me into terms of service agreement in a sneaky way.
| |
| # There is no evidence that what they did to me 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 [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50ByeqNgYjQ&list=PLkVbIsAWN2lucdpXqcM4qW6ev60OSXdw4&index=16 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 getting screwed is 100% an anti-consumer scammer, where knowing about him would prevent future people from getting scammed. However, this is simply too small and local to warrant inclusion in a wiki deemed ''specifically to inform consumers about the modern landscape of consumer protection issues''.
| |
| | |
| == Editorial guidelines ==
| |
| | |
| === Facts only ===
| |
| | |
| * The only statements made in an article should directly reference a source. There should be no attempt to interpret or explain, beyond direct factual inferences. The truest form of ‘we’re just giving you information, and we’re not going to tell you what to think’.
| |
| * Louis' videos often bring opinions, rants, and diatribes that add commentary & entertainment value; that is for the video. This is a repository of information, and to be taken seriously, it must avoid coming off as the expression of an individual's personality.
| |
| | |
| === Legalese hedging ===
| |
| | |
| * Does not include language directly condemning specific companies or named individuals. Instead, achieves this 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 direct attribution of malice to the subjects of criticism, unless such malice has been established in a legal context or by a legitimate regulatory body.
| |
| * Remember, '''this is not supposed to be a written version of Louis Rossmann's YouTube channel'''; but rather a repository of information.
| |
| | |
| === Think Nice Louis ===
| |
| | |
| * 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.
| |
| * Unlikely to be direct attacks on named individuals or companies, but likely to be strong condemnation of specific practices, while citing the companies that do them. Malice attributed to the worst offenders, in a formal and calm manner.
| |
| | |
| === Pissed off Louis ===
| |
| | |
| * Strong and unfiltered language.
| |
| * The way Louis might speak in a rant video.
| |
| * There will be direct insults to specific individuals or companies, and attribution of malice to said individuals or companies.
| |
| | |
| === NO [LUIGI'S MANSION](https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/luigi-mangione-charged-stalking-and-murder-unitedhealthcare-ceo-brian-thompson-and-use) ===
| |
| | |
| * Active advocacy for direct action against malicious companies within articles themselves.
| |
| * A blasé attitude toward the expression of extremely strong, or even violent, sentiment towards named individuals and companies.
| |
| | |
| == Article types ==
| |
| | |
| Given that the overall mission involves the need to inform people about the practices of companies, individuals, and industries in general, as well as provide detailed information about specific events, I propose the following page ‘classes’, which are loosely grouped into a three-tier informational hierarchy. Our goal here is to create something sensible and navigable, which will lead to link-based navigation through the site being a pleasant experience, and people being easily able to google for the information they want to find.
| |
| | |
| === Tier 1: Themes and Sources ===
| |
| | |
| ==== Themes ====
| |
| | |
| I would consider '''Themes''' to be a high-level type of article, which primarily aims to explain and justify core concepts and challenges for consumer protection. For example, you would have a Theme article explaining forced arbitration, or the EULA roofie - how it works, why it’s a problem, and some examples of harm caused. These should be great articles for people to link others to when trying to tell them why a certain practice is harmful.
| |
| | |
| I think Theme articles can be a useful tool for determining what is and isn’t suitable for inclusion in the wiki. It could be a rule, for example, that any incident discussed should link to one or more Themes. '''If this is implemented, the creation of Themes should be subject to a high level of scrutiny.'''
| |
| | |
| ==== Sources ====
| |
| | |
| '''Source articles''' are articles that fit the mould of Louis’ video list – these will be articles that contain a source, an explanation of who that source is and why they produce content which should be adapted, and a list of ‘stuff that you could probably make a wiki article about’. Obvious non-Louis sources may include GamersNexus, or other print sources/websites that are good at standing up for consumers. Ideally, this should be achieved in cooperation with said sources.
| |
| | |
| === Tier 2: Companies, People, and Product Lines ===
| |
| | |
| This tier of articles may well be the most useful to the casual reader. This is where someone who googles ''[insert thing here] consumer protection wiki'' should end up. For example, ''"LG television sell data consumer protection wiki"''. My basic idea for pages like this is that they should contain:
| |
| * A brief overview of the relevant entity, how big it is, and what it does.
| |
| * A rough appraisal of their attitude towards consumer protection, perhaps using a tiered rating system ranging from ‘good’ to ‘predatory’.
| |
| * A short paragraph for each of the very largest controversies of that entity.
| |
| * A list or table directing users to the pages covering their controversies and practices.
| |
| * For people, perhaps a side-box containing all the previous positions they’ve held (so you can see, for example, if the new head of a company was previously working somewhere notorious, such as Adobe).
| |
| | |
| For companies which are truly giant, such as Apple, it might make sense to not have a giant list of everything they’ve ever done all on their home page, instead linking to their various product lines, which then have the controversy lists.
| |
| | |
| === Tier 3: Incident pages and (potentially) Product pages ===
| |
| | |
| ==== Incident page ====
| |
| | |
| An '''Incident''' page will cover an event, or chain of events, which surrounds one instance of anti-consumer fuckery (or anything else relevant to the wiki). Most of the videos on the list will likely correspond to an incident page. These will make up the bulk of the pages on the wiki, though likely not the bulk of the traffic. These pages should be able to be referred to as something of a ‘historical record’ and should have a good deal of factual content relating to the event(s) in question, complete with links to, and citations of, various contemporary sources.
| |
| | |
| The key components of an incident page will be:
| |
| * The business practice in question.
| |
| * An explanation of the harm caused by the business practice, along with a link/reference to any relevant Themes.
| |
| * A brief history of how the practice came to the public’s attention.
| |
| * The immediate aftermath of the incident, and the company’s reaction to it (this will be short in most cases, but may be substantial if there was a protracted legal battle or something).
| |
| * Whether the offending party continues the anti-consumer practice to this day, or whether they have changed.
| |
| | |
| These Incident pages are the areas where citations and ‘receipts’ in general will be most important, as they will form the factual basis for the conclusions reached in the Tier 2 articles discussing the companies and people involved.
| |
| | |
| ==== Product page ====
| |
| | |
| With regards to the potential for '''Product''' pages, I think this is something that needs to be sorted out on the vision and mission statement side of things. Do we want to have a page for almost every device, which just says ‘yeah, this one’s fine’ up until the point at which more information comes out about it or someone decides to look into it? Do we create pages which highlight good behaviour, as well as bad behaviour? Do we expect the wiki to be so comprehensive that people will search ''[ProductName] CP wiki'' and expect to see a page for whatever product they’re thinking of buying? Once we know what the goal is, we can decide how to handle product pages. Do we have an ambition to scan the TOS of every product out there for concerning clauses?
| |
| | |
| I have no doubt that the need for other kinds of page will arise, but I hope that this framework can provide some structure when thinking about how a user will experience the wiki.
| |
LOST AND LOOKING TO HELP? SEE: How to help
The mission of this Wiki is to document a new generation of consumer exploitation that bears no resemblance to issues of the 1950s-1990s. We focus on the issues that often go unnoticed by review sites, tech press, and traditional consumer protection publications.
Consumer protection has changed
What is "old" consumer protection?
30 years ago, consumer advocacy dealt with more visible problems:
- Unsafe products
- Misleading labels
- Materially false advertising
- Bait & switch pricing
- Not delivering goods after payment
- Lead in toys
- Discrimination
What is "new" consumer protection?
Today's consumers face different forms of exploitation that strike at the heart of what it means to own something, and are deliberately designed to be difficult to understand or resist. Above all, unlike the issues above, these issues are usually not even illegal.
Modern businesses have perfected the art of subtle control. They are able to:
- Remotely deactivate products you "own" via cloud services.
- Alter a purchased item into a significantly different version after the sale.
- Gather personal data without adequate disclosure and sell it without proper consent.
- Hinder service cancellation by designing systems where signing up is a single click, but canceling involves navigating a complex process of sending certified mail and enduring endless phone menus.
- Change the definitions of "purchase" and "own" deep within an end user license agreement, providing legal grounds to remove items you have "purchased" from your library.
- Intentionally create obstacles to repair, causing otherwise functional devices to become unusable.
- Coerce you into forced arbitration by sending an email and assuming that not responding signifies agreement to new terms of service.
"Old" style consumer protection covers exposing and pursuing companies that break existing laws. Modern consumer protection efforts exist and are distinct, because the consumer protection laws that currently exist are not fit for purpose. Companies are able to exploit legal loopholes, or legally dubious strategies which are not met with meaningful consequences, to trap their customers in unfavorable positions. They rely on complexity & fatigue to prevent resistance.
These abuses of the consumer have a common thread:
- Take away the consumer's right to say "NO".
- Take away the consumer's right of ownership.
- Take away the consumer's right to privacy.
How we're taking action
This Wiki exists to document and expose these practices, making visible what companies work hard to keep obscure. By creating a centralized knowledge base of modern consumer exploitation tactics, we aim to help consumers understand how their rights are being systematically violated through technology, psychology, deliberately complex legal mechanisms, as well as the ineffective governmental bodies that allow it to happen.
Our goal is to bring clarity to these new practices that companies intentionally make opaque and to provide consumers with the information they need to recognize and fight back against new forms of exploitation.
How this Wiki will be used
It is expected that the Wiki will be contributed to by a wide variety of people, both technical and non-technical, who share a desire to see consumers be treated more fairly. It will enable this by being quick and easy to contribute to, with a low barrier to entry for contributors. This barrier to entry should be maintained at the minimum level necessary to combat spam and bad actors.
The base focus of the Wiki is expected to be on issues frequently discussed on Louis Rossmann’s channel, and those adjacent to the right-to-repair movement, though this may grow to a more all-encompassing definition of consumer protection over time. The minimum desired goal is to have a site that records, in a helpful and searchable format, the specific issues and topics that have been discussed on Louis’ channel over the years, with factual citations.
Ideally, it should aim to grow and act as a one-stop-shop, where a user can discover how the companies they buy products from are working against their interests behind the scenes, and what they can do about it. It should serve to highlight how consumer rights have been eroded over the years and give people the knowledge and tools to fight back against the tide. It will feature factual documentation relating to specific instances of consumer abuse, articles that track the consumer-protection-related activities of large companies and certain individuals, as well as articles and content which serve to educate users about the different forms of consumer abuse.
The Wiki will aim to be viewed as a legitimate source that, though not perfect, can generally be relied upon to provide accurate information, in a similar vein to other Wiki-projects. It is crucial for the Wiki to take steps to avoid causing harassment or financial harm to companies as a result of false or misleading information. It will enable this by attracting an excellent team of moderators, and giving them powerful and effective tools to combat spam and misinformation. If problems arise in this area, we will treat them with the utmost seriousness, as they may jeopardize the entire project.
In seeking this legitimacy, it is important that the appropriate tone is used. The exact tone that is appropriate for a given article will be defined in the Editorial Guidelines (along with the range of acceptable tones for the wiki as a whole) and will vary based on the type of article. In general, we will aim for professionalism. A project like this cannot obtain or maintain legitimacy if every article comes across as being written by someone with an axe to grind or by someone who is more interested in proving a point than the truth. Please see the Wiki Content Policies page for more guidance here, as well as the Editorial guidelines page.
The full, official, collection of CAT Wiki policies can be found here. This page can also be accessed via the sidebar.
