Mission statement: Difference between revisions

Line 56:

*It fits into the niche of "new" consumer protection - e.g., revocation of rights of ownership, or widespread changes of the terms of the sale. If it is only possible because of these new mechanisms of consumer abuse, then it can be included here. '''A story relating to a single customer, or a small handful of customers, only rises to the level of being included here if it is relevant to "modern" consumer protection. ''' Even if it only affected a single customer, the very fact that ''these things can happen in the first place'' means that they need to be documented. <br>

*It is a large-scale consumer abuse. '''An old-style consumer protection story only belongs here if it is a systemic practice that is happening to a large group of people.''' For example, consider Intel~~'s denying of customers~~ warranty replacements for ~~their~~ 14th ~~gen~~ CPUs. This practice, even if it is an ''"old"'' style anti-consumer practice (selling a defective product, and ignoring warranties en masse), is something that is systemic & widespread, beyond an individual anecdotal experience. Another relevant example is [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pMrssIrKcY Asus' warranty policies here].

*It is a large-scale consumer abuse. '''An old-style consumer protection story only belongs here if it is a systemic practice that is happening to a large group of people.''' For example, consider how Intel denied customer warranty replacements for its 14th generation CPUs. This practice, even if it is an ''"old"'' style anti-consumer practice (selling a defective product, and ignoring warranties en masse), is something that is systemic & widespread, beyond an individual anecdotal experience. Another relevant example is [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pMrssIrKcY Asus' warranty policies here].

See the description at the beginning of the Mission Statement to learn what is meant by ''"new"'' and ''"old" ''consumer issues.

===== A practice does not belong here if it belongs in a Yelp review: =====

Line 79:

* 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 information~~, and to~~ be taken seriously, it must avoid coming off as the expression of an individual's personality.

*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.

* Articles should not include language directly condemning specific companies or named individuals. Instead, this should be achieved this by citing others – ‘it has been claimed that this practice amounts to x or y’, and by use of qualifiers ‘This shares characteristics with x’. <br>

* 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 ~~supreme court~~ found that Company X...', rather than 'Company X did...'<br>

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 <ref> and <br><code><references /></code> functions.

* This will be the appropriate tone for most articles surrounding specific instances of anti-consumer behaviour, and for articles concerning companies or individuals.

@@ Line 56: / Line 56: @@
 *It fits into the niche of "new" consumer protection - e.g., revocation of rights of ownership, or widespread changes of the terms of the sale. If it is only possible because of these new mechanisms of consumer abuse, then it can be included here. '''A story relating to a single customer, or a small handful of customers, only rises to the level of being included here if it is relevant to "modern" consumer protection. '''&nbsp;Even if it only affected a single customer, the very fact that ''these things can happen in the first place'' means that they need to be documented. <br>
-*It is a large-scale consumer abuse. '''An old-style consumer protection story only belongs here if it is a systemic practice that is happening to a large group of people.''' For example, consider Intel's denying of customers warranty replacements for their 14th gen CPUs. This practice, even if it is an ''"old"'' style anti-consumer practice (selling a defective product, and ignoring warranties en masse), is something that is systemic & widespread, beyond an individual anecdotal experience. Another relevant example is [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pMrssIrKcY Asus' warranty policies here].
+*It is a large-scale consumer abuse. '''An old-style consumer protection story only belongs here if it is a systemic practice that is happening to a large group of people.''' For example, consider how Intel denied customer warranty replacements for its 14th generation CPUs. This practice, even if it is an ''"old"'' style anti-consumer practice (selling a defective product, and ignoring warranties en masse), is something that is systemic & widespread, beyond an individual anecdotal experience. Another relevant example is [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pMrssIrKcY Asus' warranty policies here].
 See the description at the beginning of the Mission Statement to learn what is meant by ''"new"'' and ''"old" ''consumer issues.
 ===== A practice does not belong here if it belongs in a Yelp review: =====
@@ Line 79: / Line 79: @@
 * 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 information, and to be taken seriously, it must avoid coming off as the expression of an individual's personality.
+*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.
 * Articles should not include language directly condemning specific companies or named individuals. Instead, this should be achieved this by citing others – ‘it has been claimed that this practice amounts to x or y’, and by use of qualifiers ‘This shares characteristics with x’.&nbsp;<br>
-* 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 supreme court found that Company X...', rather than 'Company X did...'<br>
+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 <ref> and <br><code><references /></code> functions.
 * This will be the appropriate tone for most articles surrounding specific instances of anti-consumer behaviour, and for articles concerning companies or individuals.