Consumer Rights Wiki:Editorial guidelines: Difference between revisions
minor edit |
→Factual, non-accusatory, and legally safe: clarity edit |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
===Factual, non-accusatory, and legally safe=== | ===Factual, non-accusatory, and legally safe=== | ||
*'''This is the appropriate tone for all non-theme articles.''' | |||
*Factual statements in articles should only be made where they directly reference a source. Direct inferences from these statements may be made, in a non-accusatory manner. | *Factual statements in articles should only be made where they directly reference a source. Direct inferences from these statements may be made, in a non-accusatory manner. | ||
*Source commentators often bring opinions, rants, and diatribes that add commentary & entertainment value; that is for their content. This is a repository of factual information. To be taken seriously, it must avoid coming off as the expression of an individual's personality. | *Source commentators often bring opinions, rants, and diatribes that add commentary & entertainment value; that is for their content. This is a repository of factual information. To be taken seriously, it must avoid coming off as the expression of an individual's personality. | ||
| Line 9: | Line 10: | ||
*No attribution of malice to the subjects of criticism, unless such malice has been established in a legal context or by a legitimate regulatory body. Even then, it should always be stated indirectly: 'The U.S. Supreme Court found that Company X...', rather than 'Company X did...'. Be sure to link the appropriate case or opinion using the Wiki's <code><nowiki><ref></nowiki></code> and <code><nowiki><references /></nowiki></code> tags. | *No attribution of malice to the subjects of criticism, unless such malice has been established in a legal context or by a legitimate regulatory body. Even then, it should always be stated indirectly: 'The U.S. Supreme Court found that Company X...', rather than 'Company X did...'. Be sure to link the appropriate case or opinion using the Wiki's <code><nowiki><ref></nowiki></code> and <code><nowiki><references /></nowiki></code> tags. | ||
===Persuasive, but professional=== | ===Persuasive, but professional=== | ||
*'''This tone is for Theme articles - it not appropriate for the more factual accounts expected of individual Incidents, or articles about companies''' | |||
*The way one might speak in a Senate hearing, when lobbying for change. Passionate advocacy, but avoiding strong language, or causing unnecessary offense. Where argumentation is used, it is clear and direct. | *The way one might speak in a Senate hearing, when lobbying for change. Passionate advocacy, but avoiding strong language, or causing unnecessary offense. Where argumentation is used, it is clear and direct. | ||
*No direct attacks on named individuals or companies, but likely to be strong condemnation of specific practices, while citing the companies that do them. Malice may be attributed to bad and proven offenders, in a formal and calm manner. | *No direct attacks on named individuals or companies, but likely to be strong condemnation of specific practices, while citing the companies that do them. Malice may be attributed to bad and proven offenders, in a formal and calm manner. | ||
*This is the appropriate tone for explanatory theme articles which cover larger issues relating to consumer protection and is not specifically related to individual practices by individual companies, except where these are used as examples. | *This is the appropriate tone for explanatory theme articles which cover larger issues relating to consumer protection and is not specifically related to individual practices by individual companies, except where these are used as examples. | ||
Minor revisions may be made to these guidelines from time to time, but they are expected to remain consistent with the Mission Statement, and the broad rules of thumb established here. | Minor revisions may be made to these guidelines from time to time, but they are expected to remain consistent with the Mission Statement, and the broad rules of thumb established here. | ||
| Line 45: | Line 45: | ||
==Appropriate use of sources== | ==Appropriate use of sources== | ||
{{Main|Consumer Rights Wiki:Verifiability}} | |||
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. | ||
| Line 70: | Line 71: | ||
#*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) | ||
#'''No reliability''' | |||
#*Other wikis ([[wikipedia: wikipedia:Don%27t_cite_Wikipedia_on_Wikipedia|even Wikipedia doesn’t source itself]]) | |||
===Handling anonymous sources and vague attributions=== | ===Handling anonymous sources and vague attributions=== | ||