Consumer Rights Wiki:Verifiability: Difference between revisions

(2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown)

Line 1:

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: <ref name="forum2">{{cite web |date=2025-08-01 |title=Solved: Frame TV cannot display slideshow of my own personal pictures unless I pay membership fee |url=https://eu.community.samsung.com/t5/tv/frame-tv-cannot-display-slideshow-of-my-own-personal-pictures/td-p/12892255 |publisher=Samsung Community}}</ref>.

Ideally, 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 <nowiki>{{citation needed}}</nowiki> template.

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 <code><nowiki>{{citation needed}}</nowiki></code> template.

== Reliable sources ==

==Reliable sources==

=== What counts as a reliable source ===

===What counts as a reliable source===

Sources should be weighted according to their reliability and authority:

# '''Highest reliability''' (Use these first)

#'''Highest reliability''' (Use these first)

#* 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

#*Videos from a reputable specialist channel

# '''Medium reliability'''

#*Technical documentation from reputable organizations

#* Books published by reputable publishers

#'''Medium reliability'''

#* Industry analysis that is not peer-reviewed

#*Books published by reputable publishers

#* Statements from consumer advocacy organizations

#*Industry analysis that is not peer-reviewed

#* Technical explanations from recognized experts

#*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 ===

===What should be used with caution===

# '''Lower reliability''' (These should be avoided and only used for the likes of consumer sentiment and other low-stakes situations)

#'''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)

#*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 credibility

#*Personal blogs without established credibility

#* Claims sourced anonymously (see below)

#*Videos from a disreputable source (e.g. a low-effort content farm)

# '''No reliability''' (These are unable to be used)

#*Claims sourced anonymously (see below)

#* Other wikis ([[wikipedia:wikipedia:Don't_cite_Wikipedia_on_Wikipedia|even Wikipedia doesn’t source itself]])

#'''No reliability''' (These are unable to be used)

#*Other wikis ([[wikipedia:wikipedia:Don't_cite_Wikipedia_on_Wikipedia|even Wikipedia doesn’t source itself]])

#*AI content farms (these are no better than citing ChatGPT)

== ~~Use of sources~~ ==

==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.

=== Handling anonymous sources and vague attributions ===

In source editor, paste in the following wikitext:

{{cite web

|last=

|first=

|title=

|url=

|website=

|date=

|access-date=

}}</ref></nowiki>

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

*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:

* 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:

* 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:

* 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.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 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: <ref name="forum2">{{cite web |date=2025-08-01 |title=Solved: Frame TV cannot display slideshow of my own personal pictures unless I pay membership fee |url=https://eu.community.samsung.com/t5/tv/frame-tv-cannot-display-slideshow-of-my-own-personal-pictures/td-p/12892255 |publisher=Samsung Community}}</ref>.
-Ideally, 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 <nowiki>{{citation needed}}</nowiki> template.
+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 <code><nowiki>{{citation needed}}</nowiki></code> template.
-== Reliable sources ==
+==Reliable sources==
-=== What counts as a reliable source ===
+===What counts as a reliable source===
 Sources should be weighted according to their reliability and authority:
-# '''Highest reliability''' (Use these first)
+#'''Highest reliability''' (Use these first)
-#* 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
+#*Videos from a reputable specialist channel
-# '''Medium reliability'''
+#*Technical documentation from reputable organizations
-#* Books published by reputable publishers
+#'''Medium reliability'''
-#* Industry analysis that is not peer-reviewed
+#*Books published by reputable publishers
-#* Statements from consumer advocacy organizations
+#*Industry analysis that is not peer-reviewed
-#* Technical explanations from recognized experts
+#*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 ===
+===What should be used with caution===
-# '''Lower reliability''' (These should be avoided and only used for the likes of consumer sentiment and other low-stakes situations)
+#'''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)
+#*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 credibility
+#*Personal blogs without established credibility
-#* Claims sourced anonymously (see below)
+#*Videos from a disreputable source (e.g. a low-effort content farm)
-# '''No reliability''' (These are unable to be used)
+#*Claims sourced anonymously (see below)
-#* Other wikis ([[wikipedia:wikipedia:Don't_cite_Wikipedia_on_Wikipedia|even Wikipedia doesn’t source itself]])
+#'''No reliability''' (These are unable to be used)
+#*Other wikis ([[wikipedia:wikipedia:Don't_cite_Wikipedia_on_Wikipedia|even Wikipedia doesn’t source itself]])
+#*AI content farms (these are no better than citing ChatGPT)
-== Use of sources ==
+==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.
-=== Handling anonymous sources and vague attributions ===
+In source editor, paste in the following wikitext:
+ <nowiki><ref>
+  {{cite web
+  |last=
+  |first=
+  |title=
+  |url=
+  |website=
+  |date=
+  |access-date=
+  }}</ref></nowiki>
+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
+*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:
-* 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:
-* 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:
-* 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.