Consumer Rights Wiki:Editorial guidelines: Difference between revisions
integrated the 'anonymity and vagueness in sources' article into here. will now go and delete that page. |
minor edit |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| 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 | 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. | ||
| 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: | [[Category:CRW]] | ||