Mission statement: Difference between revisions

Line 80:

* 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.

* 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>

* Articles should not include language directly condemning specific companies or named individuals. Instead, this should be achieved 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 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 80: / Line 80: @@
 * 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.
-* 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>
+* Articles should not include language directly condemning specific companies or named individuals. Instead, this should be achieved 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 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.