Consumer Rights Wiki:Editorial guidelines: Difference between revisions

(6 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)

Line 1:

==Use of tone==

Detailed below are the two main 'tones' that are acceptable within the Wiki, as well as ~~examples of~~ the article types in which they should be used.

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===

*'''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.

*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.

*'''This will be the appropriate tone for all non-theme articles.'''

===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.

*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 tone is not appropriate for the more factual accounts expected of individual Incidents, and should instead be reserved for Theme articles.'''

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 33:

*Deep dives into the technical functionality of a product at the center of an Incident

*Unsourced 'facts', and excessive use of disreputable sources

*The tone and language ~~Louis~~ might use in a rant video

*The tone and language a Youtuber or disgruntled customer might use in a rant video or review

*Direct insults to specific individuals or companies, or direct attribution of malice to said individuals or companies

*This Wiki is not for ~~"''Pissed off Louis"''~~ - ~~that's for YouTube~~, ~~and has no place here~~

*This Wiki is not a place for righteous indignation - there are plenty of places on the internet to get mad about things, this is not one of them

'''We will be especially vigilant against potentially harmful content, and take strong action against users who:'''

Line 45:

==Appropriate use of sources==

[This section is to be an ~~adaptation of~~ [[~~Consumer Action Taskforce~~:~~Anonymity~~ and ~~vagueness~~ in ~~citations|Anonymity~~ and ~~vagueness~~ in ~~citations]]~~, ~~but~~ that ~~adaptation will happen tomorrow]~~

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===

Sources should be weighted according to their reliability and authority:

#'''Highest reliability'''

#*Court decisions, regulatory findings, and official government documents

#*Peer-reviewed academic journals and research publications

#*Official company documents and statements (for establishing claims, not for establishing facts)

#*Primary source documents (contracts, terms of service, etc.)

#'''High reliability'''

#*Major established news organizations with strong fact-checking processes

#*Industry publications with editorial standards

#*Specialist blogs with established expertise and reputation

#*Technical documentation from reputable organizations

#'''Medium reliability'''

#*Books published by reputable publishers

#*Industry analysis that is not peer-reviewed

#*Statements from consumer advocacy organizations

#*Technical explanations from recognized experts

#'''Lower reliability''' (use with caution and additional verification)

#*Social media posts (even from verified accounts)

#*Forums and community discussions

#*Legal statements from lawyers of a party to an event

#*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===

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

*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

*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

'''Red flags''' that should prompt additional scrutiny:

*Claims that seem designed primarily to generate controversy

*Information that only comes from a single anonymous source

*Multiple outlets citing the same original anonymous source

*Allegations that remain unsubstantiated even after significant time has passed

*Claims that contradict documented evidence or on-the-record statements

===Balancing perspectives and due weight===

*Represent viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources

*Do not give undue weight to fringe theories or minority viewpoints

*When presenting controversial topics, ensure that mainstream perspectives are adequately 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

===Handling conflicting information===

When reliable sources conflict:

*Acknowledge the conflict explicitly

*Give preference to more recent information when appropriate

*Give preference to more specialized or authoritative sources on the specific topic

*Present multiple perspectives when the conflict represents genuine expert disagreement

*Avoid taking sides in ongoing disputes; instead, describe the differing positions

===Source transparency===

*Wiki contributors should be able to verify sources

*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)

===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

*Do not use the Wiki to advance personal vendettas or agendas

*Recognize that unsubstantiated claims can cause real harm

*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.

==Editorial Q&As==

=====Is it acceptable to, in an article detailing the faults with a particular product, direct users towards alternative products that do not share these issues?=====

===Is it acceptable to, in an article detailing the faults with a particular product, direct users towards alternative products that do not share these issues?===

This Wiki is not a place for product recommendations, and cannot be turned into a place for sneaky guerilla advertising, or the promotion of contributors' pet projects.

Line 57:

Line 134:

*If a company says ''"we cannot make xyz repair information available due to laws regarding consumer safety":'' it is acceptable to point to another company in that same industry, who provide such repair information, without legal consequence.

=====I'm interested in writing an article about an issue which only really affects my (non-US) country... Is that ok to include in the Wiki?=====

===I'm interested in writing an article about an issue which only really affects my (non-US) country... Is that ok to include in the Wiki?===

'''Absolutely!''' Provided it meets all the criteria, and is written in English, there are no restrictions on the location in which an incident has occurred, or a company is based.

[[Category:~~CAT~~]]

===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.

[[Category:CRW]]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 ==Use of tone==
-Detailed below are the two main 'tones' that are acceptable within the Wiki, as well as examples of the article types in which they should be used.
+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===
+*'''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.
 *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.
-*'''This will be the appropriate tone for all non-theme articles.'''
 ===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.
 *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 tone is not appropriate for the more factual accounts expected of individual Incidents, and should instead be reserved for Theme articles.'''
 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 33: / Line 33: @@
 *Deep dives into the technical functionality of a product at the center of an Incident
 *Unsourced 'facts', and excessive use of disreputable sources
-*The tone and language Louis might use in a rant video
+*The tone and language a Youtuber or disgruntled customer might use in a rant video or review
 *Direct insults to specific individuals or companies, or direct attribution of malice to said individuals or companies
-*This Wiki is not for "''Pissed off Louis"'' - that's for YouTube, and has no place here
+*This Wiki is not a place for righteous indignation - there are plenty of places on the internet to get mad about things, this is not one of them
 '''We will be especially vigilant against potentially harmful content, and take strong action against users who:'''
@@ Line 45: / Line 45: @@
 ==Appropriate use of sources==
-[This section is to be an adaptation of [[Consumer Action Taskforce:Anonymity and vagueness in citations|Anonymity and vagueness in citations]], but that adaptation will happen tomorrow]
+{{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.
+===Source hierarchy and reliability===
+Sources should be weighted according to their reliability and authority:
+#'''Highest reliability'''
+#*Court decisions, regulatory findings, and official government documents
+#*Peer-reviewed academic journals and research publications
+#*Official company documents and statements (for establishing claims, not for establishing facts)
+#*Primary source documents (contracts, terms of service, etc.)
+#'''High reliability'''
+#*Major established news organizations with strong fact-checking processes
+#*Industry publications with editorial standards
+#*Specialist blogs with established expertise and reputation
+#*Technical documentation from reputable organizations
+#'''Medium reliability'''
+#*Books published by reputable publishers
+#*Industry analysis that is not peer-reviewed
+#*Statements from consumer advocacy organizations
+#*Technical explanations from recognized experts
+#'''Lower reliability''' (use with caution and additional verification)
+#*Social media posts (even from verified accounts)
+#*Forums and community discussions
+#*Legal statements from lawyers of a party to an event
+#*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===
+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
+*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
+*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
+'''Red flags''' that should prompt additional scrutiny:
+*Claims that seem designed primarily to generate controversy
+*Information that only comes from a single anonymous source
+*Multiple outlets citing the same original anonymous source
+*Allegations that remain unsubstantiated even after significant time has passed
+*Claims that contradict documented evidence or on-the-record statements
+===Balancing perspectives and due weight===
+*Represent viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources
+*Do not give undue weight to fringe theories or minority viewpoints
+*When presenting controversial topics, ensure that mainstream perspectives are adequately 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
+===Handling conflicting information===
+When reliable sources conflict:
+*Acknowledge the conflict explicitly
+*Give preference to more recent information when appropriate
+*Give preference to more specialized or authoritative sources on the specific topic
+*Present multiple perspectives when the conflict represents genuine expert disagreement
+*Avoid taking sides in ongoing disputes; instead, describe the differing positions
+===Source transparency===
+*Wiki contributors should be able to verify sources
+*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)
+===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
+*Do not use the Wiki to advance personal vendettas or agendas
+*Recognize that unsubstantiated claims can cause real harm
+*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.
 ==Editorial Q&As==
-=====Is it acceptable to, in an article detailing the faults with a particular product, direct users towards alternative products that do not share these issues?=====
+===Is it acceptable to, in an article detailing the faults with a particular product, direct users towards alternative products that do not share these issues?===
 This Wiki is not a place for product recommendations, and cannot be turned into a place for sneaky guerilla advertising, or the promotion of contributors' pet projects.
@@ Line 57: / Line 134: @@
 *If a company says ''"we cannot make xyz repair information available due to laws regarding consumer safety":'' it is acceptable to point to another company in that same industry, who provide such repair information, without legal consequence.
-=====I'm interested in writing an article about an issue which only really affects my (non-US) country... Is that ok to include in the Wiki?=====
+===I'm interested in writing an article about an issue which only really affects my (non-US) country... Is that ok to include in the Wiki?===
 '''Absolutely!''' Provided it meets all the criteria, and is written in English, there are no restrictions on the location in which an incident has occurred, or a company is based.
-[[Category:CAT]]
+===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.
+[[Category:CRW]]