Consumer Rights Wiki talk:Moderators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions
→Pocket Cast: Reply |
|||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 198: | Line 198: | ||
:Where is the current "Pro-consumer articles definition" or scope policy? | :Where is the current "Pro-consumer articles definition" or scope policy? | ||
:[[Positive_practices]] exist but doesn't answer. | :[[Positive_practices]] exist but doesn't answer. | ||
:Oh, see | :Oh, see [[Category:Pro-consumer_articles]] defines it and just got edited on the 15th. https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=Category:Pro-consumer_articles&diff=prev&oldid=57894 | ||
:@[[User:Mr Pollo|Mr Pollo]], are you open to my idea? I'm reading into [[GrapheneOS]], [[Mullvad]] still being around that a proposal like mine is welcome - unlike some forums, where such a suggestion would be considered 'arguing with the mods'. [[User:CrookKilla|CrookKilla]] ([[User talk:CrookKilla|talk]]) 03:26, 29 June 2026 (UTC) | :@[[User:Mr Pollo|Mr Pollo]], are you open to my idea? I'm reading into [[GrapheneOS]], [[Mullvad]] still being around that a proposal like mine is welcome - unlike some forums, where such a suggestion would be considered 'arguing with the mods'. [[User:CrookKilla|CrookKilla]] ([[User talk:CrookKilla|talk]]) 03:26, 29 June 2026 (UTC) | ||
::I do think that if we were to continue down this route, we do seriously need to consider developing a set of proper criteria, as well as a necessary quality threshold, because only leaving it up to the whims of the bossmann just makes it difficult to sustain autonomy for the wiki [[User:JamesTDG|JamesTDG]] ([[User talk:JamesTDG|talk]]) 05:01, 29 June 2026 (UTC) | ::I do think that if we were to continue down this route, we do seriously need to consider developing a set of proper criteria, as well as a necessary quality threshold, because only leaving it up to the whims of the bossmann just makes it difficult to sustain autonomy for the wiki [[User:JamesTDG|JamesTDG]] ([[User talk:JamesTDG|talk]]) 05:01, 29 June 2026 (UTC) | ||
:::If we don't, we should add 'Such' before 'companies' in [[Category:Pro-consumer_articles]] ([https://consumerrights.wiki/w/Category:Pro-consumer_articles] ; Cat link no worky? not in preview.) . We could also blank a few of the counterexample pages, so editors can continue to '''see''' the content that was deemed inappropriate via diff link. An improvement to leaving them tagged as is or with a tag that says they serve as a counterexample. | |||
:::Should [[Policy]] or [[POL]] be a redirect to [[Consumer_Rights_Wiki:Wiki_policy_index]]? [[User:CrookKilla|CrookKilla]] ([[User talk:CrookKilla|talk]]) 14:18, 29 June 2026 (UTC) | |||
::The thing is, with the pro-consumer article criteria on the category page, we don't want to have pro-consumer products or companies covered to avoid sounding like the wiki has its full support behind them. Take [[Bitwarden]] for example. They are open source and can be self-hosted, but now as it appears they have incidents that can make the wiki look bad if there are biases included in the coverage. | |||
::Regarding [https://www.theverge.com/policy/959205/mullvads-cofounder-gave-500k-to-swedish-populist-party Mullvad] and [https://www.reddit.com/r/trmnl/comments/1u9ah6k/removed_by_moderator/ TRMNL], there are also issues with the founders donating to right-wing political organizations that i've seen on Reddit. As a wiki, we want to be as politically neutral as possible and don't want to take sides, whether it is written positively or negatively. | |||
::We encourage discussions like these and by no means is this arguing with the mods. @[[User:Keith|Keith]] can explain it better, as we decided this earlier this month in a staff Zoom meeting, but that's the reasoning in a nutshell. [[User:Mr Pollo|Mr Pollo]] ([[User talk:Mr Pollo|talk]]) 21:47, 29 June 2026 (UTC) | |||
==Pocket Cast== | ==Pocket Cast== | ||
| Line 211: | Line 218: | ||
:While it may act as supplemental information, unless we have external coverage, I would advise against writing an article on the matter. [[User:JamesTDG|JamesTDG]] ([[User talk:JamesTDG|talk]]) 05:02, 29 June 2026 (UTC) | :While it may act as supplemental information, unless we have external coverage, I would advise against writing an article on the matter. [[User:JamesTDG|JamesTDG]] ([[User talk:JamesTDG|talk]]) 05:02, 29 June 2026 (UTC) | ||
::I'm looking at [[Consumer Rights Wiki:Verifiability]]. Very on-topic. States, "Lower reliability: (use with caution and additional verification". Question is, could @[[User:ServiceLevelOne|ServiceLevelOne]] upload the email (with appropriate privacy munging) that would allow it to serve to make a claim about it added to [[Pocket Casts]] verifiable? As someone wanting to add the content, it seems reasonable to interpret "use with caution" as permission to use. If so, could they upload it here? Social media? Not seeing a clear answer. To my mind, emails would be considered appropriate evidence in a court, and so should be here too? I probably need to reread the policies through again. | |||
::From the mission statement page: "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." is important, but (from experience reading and writing) hard to follow in practice. [[User:CrookKilla|CrookKilla]] ([[User talk:CrookKilla|talk]]) 14:40, 29 June 2026 (UTC) | |||