Mission statement: Difference between revisions
Greenfishes (talk | contribs) m Some grammar and spelling fixes. |
Greenfishes (talk | contribs) m Fixed a mistake from the last edit. |
||
| Line 88: | Line 88: | ||
* The way Louis would speak in a Senate hearing. Passionate advocacy, but avoiding strong language, or causing unnecessary offense. Where argumentation is used, it is clear and direct. | * The way Louis would speak in a Senate hearing. 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. | * 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 | * This is the appropriate tone for explanatory theme articles that covers 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. | * This tone is not appropriate for the more factual accounts expected of individual Incidents. | ||
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. | 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. | ||