Consumer Action Taskforce:Wiki content policies: Difference between revisions

(8 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)

Line 1:

While our ultimate goal is to establish a comprehensive set of policies on the CAT Wiki, there are numerous areas where our approach aligns with Wikipedia's. This document outlines how we adapt Wikipedia's three primary ~~editorial guidelines—Neutral~~ Point of View (NPOV), Verifiability, and No Original ~~Research—and~~ highlights both similarities and differences in our approach.

[[Category:CAT]]

While our ultimate goal is to establish a comprehensive set of policies on the CAT Wiki, there are numerous areas where our approach aligns with Wikipedia's. This document outlines how we adapt Wikipedia's three primary content policies — [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view|Neutral Point of View (NPOV)]], [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:Verifiability|Verifiability]], and [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:No_original_research|No Original Research]] — and highlights both similarities and differences in our approach.

The key distinction between Wikipedia~~, an encyclopedia,~~ and our ~~Wiki~~ is our core mission~~, which extends beyond documenting and presenting information to actively promoting~~ a consumer-rights~~-focused~~ agenda. ~~For instance~~, ~~adopting~~ NPOV ~~across our site~~ would conflict with our mission to advocate for consumer rights. Nevertheless, we aim to be a reliable source of information and avoid misrepresenting the events we cover.

The key distinction between Wikipedia's approach and our own is that [[Mission statement|our core mission]] includes the promotion of a consumer rights agenda, in addition to the accurate documentation and presentation of information. Fully adopting certain Wikipedia policies, such as NPOV, would conflict with our mission to advocate for consumer rights. Nevertheless, we aim to be a reliable source of information and avoid misrepresenting the events we cover.

==Neutral Point Of View==

Line 7:

Line 8:

The NPOV principle will be applied as follows:

* For theme articles, NPOV can be largely set aside. In these articles, the Wiki’s voice can clearly take a stance on the issue at hand. This does not mean disregarding tone guidelines (see: tone guidelines), omitting counter-arguments, or failing to cite facts. It simply allows for direct statements like ‘X is a major issue facing consumers today’ without needing to cite a source (e.g., it is unnecessary to write: ‘Y stated in a video that X is a major issue facing consumers today’). An example of a theme article that meets these criteria can be found [here].

* For theme articles, NPOV can be largely set aside. In these articles, the Wiki’s voice can clearly take a stance on the issue at hand. This does not mean disregarding tone guidelines (see: tone guidelines), omitting counter-arguments, or failing to cite facts. It simply allows for the use of direct statements like ‘X is a major issue facing consumers today’ without needing to cite a source (e.g., it is unnecessary to write: ‘Y stated in a video that X is a major issue facing consumers today’). An example of a theme article that meets these criteria can be found [here].

* For Tier 2 and 3 articles, NPOV will be fully implemented. To maintain credibility as a repository of accurate information, it is crucial that consumer protection-related incidents are documented accurately and fairly.

It is beneficial to review Wikipedia’s ~~summaries~~ on the concept of [undue weight], which explain how we can highlight anti-consumer practices while maintaining NPOV. If there is clear and overwhelming evidence of a company's anti-consumer behavior, and the only opposition is a weak rebuttal from the company, presenting both viewpoints equally would create a false balance and give undue weight to the company's argument.

It is beneficial to review Wikipedia’s guidance on the concept of [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:UNDUE|undue weight]], which explain how we can highlight anti-consumer practices while maintaining NPOV. If there is clear and overwhelming evidence of a company's anti-consumer behavior, and the only opposition is a weak rebuttal from the company, presenting both viewpoints equally would create a false balance and give undue weight to the company's argument.

Attention should be paid to Wikipedia’s [guidelines on word choice]. General principles, such as avoiding the use of ‘claimed’ when it has negative connotations and opting for a neutral term like ‘stated’, remain applicable. As previously mentioned, the primary purpose of Tier 2 and 3 articles is to serve as a record and repository for evidence of anti-consumer activity. A fair and neutral approach is essential for the Wiki to be taken seriously.

Attention should be paid to Wikipedia’s [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch|guidelines on word choice]]. General principles, such as avoiding the use of ‘claimed’ when it has negative connotations and opting for a neutral term like ‘stated’, remain applicable. As previously mentioned, the primary purpose of Tier 2 and 3 articles is to serve as a record and repository for evidence of anti-consumer activity. A fair and neutral approach is essential for the Wiki to be taken seriously.

==Verifiability==

Our primary deviation from Wikipedia's approach to verifiability lies in the range of acceptable sources. Modern consumer protection issues are often inadequately covered by the ~~‘legitimate~~ sources’ preferred by Wikipedia, necessitating an adjustment in our range of acceptable sources.

Our primary deviation from Wikipedia's approach to verifiability lies in the range of acceptable sources. Modern consumer protection issues are often inadequately covered by the ‘reliable sources’ preferred by Wikipedia, necessitating an adjustment in our range of acceptable sources.

It is crucial to avoid ‘purity testing’ potential sources. Has Linus Tech Tips occasionally presented misleading information? Yes. Are they always straightforward and controversy-free? No. However, they generally produce content that is broadly factually correct and represents a significant viewpoint on various tech and consumer issues.

It is crucial to avoid ‘purity testing’ potential sources. Has Linus Tech Tips occasionally presented misleading information? Yes. Are they always straightforward and controversy-free? No. However, they generally produce content that is broadly factually correct and represents a significant viewpoint on various tech and consumer issues, and as such are an acceptable source to cite.

Generally, as long as a source has reasonable notability and a reputation that is not actively non-credible (such as UserBenchmark’s reputation for widespread non-credibility), it is acceptable to cite them unless it can be shown that the specific information being cited is incorrect.

Generally, as long as a source has reasonable notability and a reputation that is not actively non-credible (such as UserBenchmark’s reputation for widespread bias, dubious results, and general non-credibility), it is acceptable to cite them unless it can be shown that the specific information being cited is incorrect.

This does not mean any source can be used. As a rule of thumb, any primary research source should meet at least one of these criteria:

Line 40:

Line 39:

Wikipedia’s No Original Research rule will be fully adopted, with the sole exception that opinions within Theme articles do not require citations. Facts within Theme articles, and all opinionated or factual statements within Tier 2 and 3 articles, must adhere to the No Original Research rule, meaning they must be supported by citations to external sources that meet the verifiability criteria specified above.

Facts and opinions are defined as they are within [Wikipedia’s] guidelines. Generally, facts should come from a primary source (i.e., a party to events or a party competent to perform primary technical analysis/research on the issue), and opinions and reactions may come from the best available sources, as defined by their notability and competency.

Facts and opinions are defined as they are within Wikipedia’s NPOV guidelines. Generally, facts should come from a primary source (i.e., a party to events or a party competent to perform primary technical analysis/research on the issue), and opinions and reactions may come from the best available sources, as defined by their notability and competency.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-While our ultimate goal is to establish a comprehensive set of policies on the CAT Wiki, there are numerous areas where our approach aligns with Wikipedia's. This document outlines how we adapt Wikipedia's three primary editorial guidelines—Neutral Point of View (NPOV), Verifiability, and No Original Research—and highlights both similarities and differences in our approach.
+[[Category:CAT]]
+While our ultimate goal is to establish a comprehensive set of policies on the CAT Wiki, there are numerous areas where our approach aligns with Wikipedia's. This document outlines how we adapt Wikipedia's three primary content policies — [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view|Neutral Point of View (NPOV)]], [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:Verifiability|Verifiability]], and [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:No_original_research|No Original Research]] — and highlights both similarities and differences in our approach.
-The key distinction between Wikipedia, an encyclopedia, and our Wiki is our core mission, which extends beyond documenting and presenting information to actively promoting a consumer-rights-focused agenda. For instance, adopting NPOV across our site would conflict with our mission to advocate for consumer rights. Nevertheless, we aim to be a reliable source of information and avoid misrepresenting the events we cover.
+The key distinction between Wikipedia's approach and our own is that [[Mission statement|our core mission]] includes the promotion of a consumer rights agenda, in addition to the accurate documentation and presentation of information. Fully adopting certain Wikipedia policies, such as NPOV, would conflict with our mission to advocate for consumer rights. Nevertheless, we aim to be a reliable source of information and avoid misrepresenting the events we cover.
 ==Neutral Point Of View==
@@ Line 7: / Line 8: @@
 The NPOV principle will be applied as follows:
-* For theme articles, NPOV can be largely set aside. In these articles, the Wiki’s voice can clearly take a stance on the issue at hand. This does not mean disregarding tone guidelines (see: tone guidelines), omitting counter-arguments, or failing to cite facts. It simply allows for direct statements like ‘X is a major issue facing consumers today’ without needing to cite a source (e.g., it is unnecessary to write: ‘Y stated in a video that X is a major issue facing consumers today’). An example of a theme article that meets these criteria can be found [here].
+* For theme articles, NPOV can be largely set aside. In these articles, the Wiki’s voice can clearly take a stance on the issue at hand. This does not mean disregarding tone guidelines (see: tone guidelines), omitting counter-arguments, or failing to cite facts. It simply allows for the use of direct statements like ‘X is a major issue facing consumers today’ without needing to cite a source (e.g., it is unnecessary to write: ‘Y stated in a video that X is a major issue facing consumers today’). An example of a theme article that meets these criteria can be found [here].
 * For Tier 2 and 3 articles, NPOV will be fully implemented. To maintain credibility as a repository of accurate information, it is crucial that consumer protection-related incidents are documented accurately and fairly.
-It is beneficial to review Wikipedia’s summaries on the concept of [undue weight], which explain how we can highlight anti-consumer practices while maintaining NPOV. If there is clear and overwhelming evidence of a company's anti-consumer behavior, and the only opposition is a weak rebuttal from the company, presenting both viewpoints equally would create a false balance and give undue weight to the company's argument.
+It is beneficial to review Wikipedia’s guidance on the concept of [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:UNDUE|undue weight]], which explain how we can highlight anti-consumer practices while maintaining NPOV. If there is clear and overwhelming evidence of a company's anti-consumer behavior, and the only opposition is a weak rebuttal from the company, presenting both viewpoints equally would create a false balance and give undue weight to the company's argument.
-Attention should be paid to Wikipedia’s [guidelines on word choice]. General principles, such as avoiding the use of ‘claimed’ when it has negative connotations and opting for a neutral term like ‘stated’, remain applicable. As previously mentioned, the primary purpose of Tier 2 and 3 articles is to serve as a record and repository for evidence of anti-consumer activity. A fair and neutral approach is essential for the Wiki to be taken seriously.
+Attention should be paid to Wikipedia’s [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch|guidelines on word choice]]. General principles, such as avoiding the use of ‘claimed’ when it has negative connotations and opting for a neutral term like ‘stated’, remain applicable. As previously mentioned, the primary purpose of Tier 2 and 3 articles is to serve as a record and repository for evidence of anti-consumer activity. A fair and neutral approach is essential for the Wiki to be taken seriously.
 ==Verifiability==
-Our primary deviation from Wikipedia's approach to verifiability lies in the range of acceptable sources. Modern consumer protection issues are often inadequately covered by the ‘legitimate sources’ preferred by Wikipedia, necessitating an adjustment in our range of acceptable sources.
+Our primary deviation from Wikipedia's approach to verifiability lies in the range of acceptable sources. Modern consumer protection issues are often inadequately covered by the ‘reliable sources’ preferred by Wikipedia, necessitating an adjustment in our range of acceptable sources.
-It is crucial to avoid ‘purity testing’ potential sources. Has Linus Tech Tips occasionally presented misleading information? Yes. Are they always straightforward and controversy-free? No. However, they generally produce content that is broadly factually correct and represents a significant viewpoint on various tech and consumer issues.
+It is crucial to avoid ‘purity testing’ potential sources. Has Linus Tech Tips occasionally presented misleading information? Yes. Are they always straightforward and controversy-free? No. However, they generally produce content that is broadly factually correct and represents a significant viewpoint on various tech and consumer issues, and as such are an acceptable source to cite.
-Generally, as long as a source has reasonable notability and a reputation that is not actively non-credible (such as UserBenchmark’s reputation for widespread non-credibility), it is acceptable to cite them unless it can be shown that the specific information being cited is incorrect.
+Generally, as long as a source has reasonable notability and a reputation that is not actively non-credible (such as UserBenchmark’s reputation for widespread bias, dubious results, and general non-credibility), it is acceptable to cite them unless it can be shown that the specific information being cited is incorrect.
 This does not mean any source can be used. As a rule of thumb, any primary research source should meet at least one of these criteria:
@@ Line 40: / Line 39: @@
 Wikipedia’s No Original Research rule will be fully adopted, with the sole exception that opinions within Theme articles do not require citations. Facts within Theme articles, and all opinionated or factual statements within Tier 2 and 3 articles, must adhere to the No Original Research rule, meaning they must be supported by citations to external sources that meet the verifiability criteria specified above.
-Facts and opinions are defined as they are within [Wikipedia’s] guidelines. Generally, facts should come from a primary source (i.e., a party to events or a party competent to perform primary technical analysis/research on the issue), and opinions and reactions may come from the best available sources, as defined by their notability and competency.
+Facts and opinions are defined as they are within Wikipedia’s NPOV guidelines. Generally, facts should come from a primary source (i.e., a party to events or a party competent to perform primary technical analysis/research on the issue), and opinions and reactions may come from the best available sources, as defined by their notability and competency.