Consumer Rights Wiki talk:Moderators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

VisualWikitext

Add topic

@@ Line 182: / Line 182: @@
 :Oh, and do we have an admin who can import templates from Wikipedia or are you looking for one? [[Special:Import]] requires the mop too. I used [[Template:Dead link]] recently at [[eBay]] (before it existed), and <s>would like</s> ''wanted'' to import it so it would ''work'', but I saw the Wikipedia version has a bunch of dependencies: Template:Fix, Module:Yesno, Module:Arguments, the '''whole freaking''' Module:Citation/CS1, and sub-Modules (they're ~half the file), Module:Protection banner+sub and Module:Documentation+subs (~5% each), Module:Check for unknown parameters, Module:Navbox, Template:Dead link/styles.css, and related meta-templates ~50 "pages" total. Apparently, essential backend extensions like Scribunto, ParserFunctions, and TemplateStyles must be installed, with a full export via Special:Export recommended to ensure all dependencies are included. The export produces a ridiculously huge 1.1MB file if I check "Include templates" (required; otherwise, it's tiny).
 :'''SUCCESS'''!  Relatively minimalist   [[Template:Dead link]]  forked off Wikia instead. Works!  Having a strategy re https://webmasters.stackexchange.com/questions/117429/how-to-use-wikipedia-templates-on-an-outside-mediawiki would be good.  We have so I presume we already imported CS1, or does it come with MediWiki?  I see we do NOT have citation (CS1, CS2, etc) templates; citations work through Modules, so those templates are not needed, apparently. [[User:CrookKilla|CrookKilla]] ([[User talk:CrookKilla|talk]]) 20:52, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
+::Maybe grant me template editing rights, so I can edit existing ones, not just create [[template:dead link|new ones]]?  See [[Template_talk:Wplink#Proposal:_Make_wplinks_distinctive?]].
+::Glad to hear that InstantCommons is coming. Via @[[User:JakeL|JakeL]] I presume.  Questions welcome. [[User:CrookKilla|CrookKilla]] ([[User talk:CrookKilla|talk]]) 16:08, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
 ==vague Pro-consumer articles definition==
@@ Line 198: / Line 200: @@
 :Where is the current  "Pro-consumer articles definition" or scope policy?
 :[[Positive_practices]] exist but doesn't answer.
-: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
+: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)
 ::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.
+:::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)
+:::Good point to raise.  Solution?  I don't think there's a major password manager that hasn't had significant issues.  I still think using one is a good idea (and I think there's expert consensus on this (and [https://www.securityscientist.net/blog/are-password-managers-safe/] confirms)).  A company having a founder or executive having made a political donation is not a sensible exclusion criterion.  That's part of not taking sides.
+:::Before continuing, I just want to say, I don't mean to reopen discussions on decisions that have already been hashed out and regarding which there's contributor/mod consensus, or already-final management decision.  If I'm doing that, let me know.
+:::So, I'm wondering - do you think the necessary solution to the point you raise is to delete the category and not allow it to have any entries?  And delete pages that would be entries in the category? Not seeing that as necessary to avoid legal issues. More of an unnecessary (sledgehammer) solution to limit mission creep.
+:::Also, I don't understand what you're saying is an actual problem that the [[Bitwarden]] page is or was an example of.  I don't see one.  Or you just mean it could be one if badly edited or tagged regarding what you mentioned?  I guess I'm seeing a distinction between pages that could be a problem if badly edited and them being a problem now / imminently leading to one.
+:::I don't understand why you think "companies, people, and products should not have a pro-consumer article made about them".  Do you really mean to say that, that broadly?   If so, can you say more about ''why'' you think so?  I read that as saying [[Bitwarden]], [[GrapheneOS]], [[Mullvad]], and [[GOG.com]] need to be deleted.   Is this a you opinion, or a mod/staff consensus opinion.  I wonder how much of a hand / stake Louis/management wants to have and exert.  And I'm curious why you edited the cat but didn't  add 'Such' as I suggested.
+:::Oh, I see a significant, fixable problem.  [[Consumer Rights Wiki:Moderator guidelines#1. Determining inclusion in the wiki|Consumer Rights Wiki:Moderator guidelines]] is a separate page from [[Consumer Rights Wiki:Inclusion guidelines]] but they are both Inclusion guidelines.  But are very different.  Would be good to merge 'em? Seeing the latter page prompted me to add the second paragraph, above. Starting to feel like I'm stirring the pot more than I actually want to, that misread into the current situation that where policy edges are to be is still being figured out / are less already-hashed out than they are.
+:::Would be nice if we had the mediawiki gadgets like the one that identifies mods on sight/mouseover.  [[User:CrookKilla|CrookKilla]] ([[User talk:CrookKilla|talk]]) 17:56, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
+::::My apologies regarding Bitwarden, I meant IF we had it as a pro-consumer article or if we recommended it on the mainpage of the wiki, there would have been problems. Currently as it stands, the article meets our inclusion policy.
+::::That is not my opinion alone, but a mod/staff consensus decided by me, Keith, @[[User:Sojourna|Sojourna]], @[[User:JakeL|JakeL]], and Sarang alongside another. Unfortunately those articles might be deleted in the near future. [[User:Mr Pollo|Mr Pollo]] ([[User talk:Mr Pollo|talk]]) 21:04, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
+:::::going to @[[User:CrookKilla|CrookKilla]] @[[User:SinexTitan|SinexTitan]] @[[User:JamesTDG|JamesTDG]] as well since I'll be responding to a whole bunch of the points in this thread in this comment.
+:::::* In terms of any specific articles still being around, this is less to do with a specific judgement that they should be kept or removed, and more to do with the fact that the policy is still young and is not set in stone yet by any means. The discussion is on this is very much open, and new comments and discussions are always welcome even on 'settled' topics - everyone is always welcome to provide feedback on and propose changes to wiki policy.
+:::::* On the idea of Louis' endorsement of something being used as a standard for inclusion, I am quite strongly opposed to having our policies be Louis-based. One of the primary purposes of the wiki is to exist as an editorially independent entity which, though there is certainly major community overlap, is not directly tied to Louis' channel in its content. Other than a few off-hand references, Louis's name and views are not at the forefront of any of the Wiki's policies. A long-term ambition for the wiki is for its readership to significantly expand beyond Louis' audience, and basing our policies on his views and takes would take us away from that goal, rather than towards it.
+:::::* In general, if you think you see a contradiction in wiki policy, you're probably correct - there are no sacred texts here! The policy is a ''long'' way from infallible, and revisions/edits are very much welcome (I think the pages are protected but if you write something on the talk page and ping me or a mod, the text will likely be added unless there is something obviously controversial about it).
+:::::* One thing I'd like to add some nuance to (in the context of Mr Pollo's comment to which I am replying) is around the use of the term consensus. I think we should probably stick to only calling things consensus if that consensus has been reached in a talk page on the wiki itself. It's fair to represent the views you were talking about as more than just the opinion of one person (which is true - we had the meeting and agreed) but there's a reason why, after that conversation, I uploaded it as a proposed set of guidelines rather than adding it directly to the wiki policy, and that is because of the fact that it was discussed in a 'off the record' setting rather than on the wiki. Meetings like that should be considered communal brainstorming sessions rather than binding commitments or anything of the sort. In general we should have any 'official' policy discussions/debates on the wiki itself, since it is good practice to avoid having policy dictated by a clique, or creating the perception that policy is clique-dictated. As it stands, the wiki's policies have largely been determined by myself and a few others, but that is largely down to the small number of people who have chosen to work on it, and a general lack of opposition to the policy as it stands. Early on in the wiki's life we did have a few major bits of policy written by other folks, such as @[[User:Waldo|Waldo]] designing the category system, and @[[User:Mingyee|Mingyee]] writing the style guide. I think it would be very healthy for the wiki to have more people working on writing, debating, and refining the policies, and I absolutely do encourage more people to get involved in that aspect of the wiki!
+:::::* Since I haven't seen it linked here, I'll drop a link to the draft policy here: [[Consumer_Rights_Wiki_talk:Draft_policy_on_the_inclusion_of_positive_consumer-focused_acts_and_practices]]
+:::::* Those redirects @[[User:CrookKilla|CrookKilla]] suggested seem sensible - feel free to add them in!
+:::::That's all that comes to mind for now, but if there's anything anyone feels has been left unaddressed, I'm happy to provide further comment. [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 01:37, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
 ==Pocket Cast==