Consumer Rights Wiki:Moderator guidelines: Difference between revisions
mostly done section 1 -have an idea for teh rest and will finish this eve |
made some progress on section 2 |
||
| Line 53: | Line 53: | ||
* It describes an isolated incident with no evidence of systemic relevance. | * It describes an isolated incident with no evidence of systemic relevance. | ||
* It is based on unverifiable claims or relies solely on anecdotal evidence. | * It is based on ''unverifiable'' claims or relies solely on anecdotal evidence. | ||
* The issue concerns employee rights, labor disputes, or government misconduct unrelated to consumer protection regulation or enforcement. '''This is a wiki about consumer protection, not about general corporate maleficence. If the article does not relate to the interaction between the provider of a product or service, and the consumer of that product or service, then it does not belong here!''' | * The issue concerns employee rights, labor disputes, or government misconduct unrelated to consumer protection regulation or enforcement. '''This is a wiki about consumer protection, not about general corporate maleficence. If the article does not relate to the interaction between the provider of a product or service, and the consumer of that product or service, then it does not belong here!''' | ||
| Line 60: | Line 60: | ||
---- | ---- | ||
=== 2. Identifying | === 2. Identifying Articles in Need of Flags (Stubs and beyond) [WIP] === | ||
These are guidelines for the implementation of the Wiki's content policies and editorial guidelines. | |||
==== A. Evidence Requirements: ==== | ==== A. Available Tags: ==== | ||
Articles which are substantially non-compliant with Wiki rules can be marked with the tags described below. The purposes of such flags are twofold: to warn the reader of a potentially low-quality article, and to bring such articles to the attention of admins and other editors, who may improve or remove the article. | |||
* Stub (for an article which is simply underdeveloped: the content currentlyu within it does not justify its existence, but there is nothing wrong in concept with such an article existing) | |||
* Needs additional verification (for an article that might be basically fine, but is dangerously under-cited, or the citations are very sus. should only lead to deletion if it's in massive violation of the No Original Reaearch policy, and no good sources exist with which to fix it) | |||
* Questionable Relevance (for an article that is on the edge of not being relevant, and an editor feels falls foul of the inclusion criteria above. Basically a limbo to put articles in where their merits can be discussed before a descision is made on their deletion) | |||
==== B. Evidence Requirements: ==== | |||
A good article should: | |||
# '''Substantiate Claims:''' | # '''Substantiate Claims:''' | ||