|
|
| Line 32: |
Line 32: |
| * '''If the article is a person page:''' | | * '''If the article is a person page:''' |
|
| |
|
| # The article is compliant with the Living Persons policy. If article is non-compliant, then delete content, or the entire article, as appropriate. | | # The article is compliant with the [[Living Persons Policy|Living Persons policy]]. If article is non-compliant, then delete content, or the entire article, as appropriate. |
| # The subject of the article is a person with major decision-making influence over one or more incident pages, at least one of which must be of high quality (properly sourced, so on and so forth) | | # The subject of the article is a person with major decision-making influence over one or more incident pages, at least one of which must be of high quality (properly sourced, so on and so forth) |
|
| |
|
| Line 53: |
Line 53: |
| * 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 61: |
Line 59: |
| These are guidelines for the implementation of the Wiki's content policies and editorial guidelines. | | These are guidelines for the implementation of the Wiki's content policies and editorial guidelines. |
|
| |
|
| ==== A. Available Tags: ==== | | ==== A. Available Tags: [note: revisit once these are finalised] ==== |
| 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. | | 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. |
|
| |
|
| Line 69: |
Line 67: |
|
| |
|
| ==== B. Evidence Requirements: ==== | | ==== B. Evidence Requirements: ==== |
| A good article should: | | A good article, not in need of marking, should '''substantiate its claims.''' |
| | |
| | * Utilise sources in line with [[Wiki Content Policies#Verifiability|the Wiki's verifiability policy]]. |
| | * Corroborate patterns or systemic relevance through multiple examples or reports |
|
| |
|
| # '''Substantiate Claims:'''
| | ==== C. Alignment with Mission: ==== |
| #* Provide clear documentation (e.g., receipts, photos, communications, repair logs) or credible reporting from reputable sources.
| | A good article, not in need of marking, will make it clear how it relates to broader issues of consumer protection: |
| #* Corroborate patterns or systemic relevance through multiple examples or reports.
| |
| # '''Clarify Context:'''
| |
| #* Specify details that establish a connection to systemic company policies or failures (e.g., was this behavior authorized or enabled by the company?).
| |
| #* Explain how the incident fits into the broader framework of modern consumer exploitation.
| |
|
| |
|
| ==== B. Alignment with Mission: ====
| | * Demonstrate (through evidence, and assertion by sources, not thorugh direct accusation in the Wiki's voice) how the incident reflects deliberate corporate practices rather than isolated errors or rogue employee actions. |
| To make the submission relevant:
| | * Directly link to the theme articles describing the relevant practices. |
|
| |
|
| # '''Tie to Systemic Issues:'''
| | * If the Incident affected only a small hanfdful of consumers, demonstrate that the systems which enabled it have relevance to a wider consumer base. |
| #* Demonstrate how the incident reflects deliberate corporate practices rather than isolated errors or rogue employee actions.
| |
| #* Connect the issue to themes like ownership revocation, barriers to repair, or privacy violations.
| |
| # '''Focus on Broader Impact:'''
| |
| #* Show evidence of a pattern or trend affecting multiple consumers rather than an individual case.
| |
| #* Avoid local, one-off incidents unless they reveal systemic failures.
| |
|
| |
|
| ==== C. Rewriting for Tone and Presentation: ==== | | ==== D. Tone and Presentation: ==== |
| To ensure suitability for the wiki:
| | A good article, not in need of marking, will be written in accordance with the Wiki's implementation of [[Wiki Content Policies|NPOV (Neutral Point-Of-View):]] |
|
| |
|
| # '''Neutral and Factual:'''
| | * '''The article should be neutral and factual,''' without unneccesarily emotional language, and without coming across as an expression of personal grievances or irrelevant hypotheticals. |
| #* Remove emotional language, personal grievances, or irrelevant hypotheticals.
| | * The citing of sources for opinion or commentary should present a balanced and rational view, without giving undue weight to fringe opinions. |
| #* Focus on presenting facts with citations and avoiding subjective commentary.
| |
| # '''Condense and Organize:'''
| |
| #* Break down issues into specific claims with clear supporting evidence.
| |
|
| |
|
| ---- | | ---- |
| Line 222: |
Line 211: |
| ----By consistently applying this action plan, moderators can ensure submissions meet the wiki’s standards, maintaining its focus on systemic, well-documented consumer exploitation while rejecting irrelevant or unsupported claims. | | ----By consistently applying this action plan, moderators can ensure submissions meet the wiki’s standards, maintaining its focus on systemic, well-documented consumer exploitation while rejecting irrelevant or unsupported claims. |
|
| |
|
| == Test cases for creating rules == | | == Example applications of rules: == |
| | |
| === Case 1 ===
| |
|
| |
|
| ==== Rule for Unverified or Anecdotal Reports: ====
| | ** |
| | |
| * '''Criteria for Exclusion:''' | |
| ** Reports based solely on personal experience, without evidence of systemic impact or corroboration from multiple independent, reliable sources, are not to be included. | |
| ** Community posts or discussions without further investigation by reputable sources are insufficient for inclusion.
| |
| * '''Reasoning:'''
| |
| ** The wiki focuses on '''systemic consumer abuses''', not isolated incidents. For an issue to be included, it must demonstrate clear evidence of a '''widespread pattern''' affecting multiple users.
| |
| ** Relying on anecdotal reports risks the credibility of the wiki and deviates from its mission to provide factual, well-documented information.
| |
| * '''Moderator Action:'''
| |
| ** If an issue has potential (e.g., multiple similar complaints), flag it for '''monitoring and further investigation'''. Inclusion can be reconsidered once reputable sources or systemic patterns emerge.
| |
| * '''Example Application:''' | | * '''Example Application:''' |
| ** The Samsung Fold screen issue described in the email: | | ** The Samsung Fold screen issue described in the email: |
| Line 241: |
Line 219: |
| *** '''Next steps:''' The issue could be revisited if covered by reputable tech outlets, documented through credible sources, or verified as a systemic problem affecting multiple users. | | *** '''Next steps:''' The issue could be revisited if covered by reputable tech outlets, documented through credible sources, or verified as a systemic problem affecting multiple users. |
|
| |
|
| ----This rule ensures that moderators have a clear and objective basis to exclude unverified reports while leaving room for reconsideration if stronger evidence arises. It aligns with the mission to document systemic consumer exploitation, not anecdotal frustrations. | | ---- |
| | | ** |
| === Case 2 ===
| |
| | |
| ==== Rule for Hyper-Local or Non-Systemic Issues: ====
| |
| | |
| * '''Criteria for Exclusion:'''
| |
| ** Cases involving '''individual contractors, local businesses, or isolated incidents of poor service''' are not to be included unless they demonstrate a '''systemic pattern of abuse''' or highlight a practice that is directly relevant to modern consumer protection (e.g., revocation of ownership, privacy violations, or anti-repair practices).
| |
| ** Issues limited to a specific individual or region, such as bad contractors or dishonest local businesses, are better suited for local consumer protection agencies, review platforms (e.g., Yelp, Google), or small claims court.
| |
| * '''Reasoning:'''
| |
| ** The wiki’s purpose is to address '''modern systemic consumer exploitation''', not localized or anecdotal issues. Including hyper-local matters would dilute the focus and value of the repository.
| |
| ** As noted in the mission statement, these cases lack the broader relevance required for inclusion and are better addressed through alternative channels like local reviews or regulatory bodies.
| |
| * '''Moderator Action:'''
| |
| ** Reject cases that:
| |
| *** Focus on an individual or small business without a broader, systemic component.
| |
| *** Do not involve mechanisms like legal loopholes, deliberate opacity, or exploitation through technology.
| |
| ** Redirect users to appropriate resources (e.g., local consumer protection agencies or review platforms). | |
| * '''Example Application:''' | | * '''Example Application:''' |
| ** Eugene Harrington case (linked video): | | ** Eugene Harrington case (linked video): |
| Line 265: |
Line 228: |
| ----This rule gives moderators a concrete framework to handle such cases objectively and aligns with the mission to focus on broader, systemic issues that reflect the new landscape of consumer exploitation. | | ----This rule gives moderators a concrete framework to handle such cases objectively and aligns with the mission to focus on broader, systemic issues that reflect the new landscape of consumer exploitation. |
|
| |
|
| === Case 3 ===
| | #* |
| | |
| ==== Rule for Exclusion of Government and Employment Disputes: ====
| |
| | |
| * '''Criteria for Exclusion:'''
| |
| ** Cases involving government actions or disputes are excluded unless:
| |
| *** The government activity directly pertains to '''consumer protection regulation''' or the '''enforcement of regulation''' aimed at protecting consumers from corporate abuse.
| |
| *** The issue specifically involves '''modern consumer exploitation''' (e.g., enabling corporate practices like forced obsolescence or data misuse).
| |
| ** Cases related to '''employee rights or labor disputes''' are excluded entirely, as the wiki is focused on consumer rights, not employment issues.
| |
| * '''Reasoning:'''
| |
| ** The wiki’s mission is to document '''consumer exploitation by corporations''', not broader government misconduct or labor issues.
| |
| ** Including cases like government fraud or taxation disputes would dilute the focus and misrepresent the purpose of the repository.
| |
| * '''Moderator Action:'''
| |
| ** Reject cases involving:
| |
| *** General government fraud, tax disputes, or mismanagement unrelated to consumer protection.
| |
| *** Employee rights violations or labor disputes, even if they involve corporate practices.
| |
| ** Redirect users to appropriate channels, such as local legal aid, government oversight agencies, or advocacy groups for these specific issues.
| |
| * '''Example Application:'''
| |
| ** The Texas Tax Office problem:
| |
| *** '''Not included:''' This case involves alleged government misconduct unrelated to corporate consumer exploitation or regulatory enforcement.
| |
| *** '''Alternative action:''' Recommend legal aid organizations or state-specific resources for property tax disputes.
| |
| ** Hypothetical case of government enforcing anti-repair laws:
| |
| *** '''Included:''' If a government entity actively enforces laws that restrict consumers’ ability to repair devices, this would qualify as it directly affects consumer rights and aligns with modern consumer protection themes.
| |
| | |
| === Case 4 ===
| |
| | |
| ==== Rule for Submissions with Allegations of Consumer Exploitation: ====
| |
| | |
| # '''Criteria for Inclusion:'''
| |
| #* Allegations must be:
| |
| #** '''Specific:''' Clearly articulated grievances with identifiable and verifiable claims (e.g., "warranty denied for Motorola Edge 30 Ultra due to green lines after an update" rather than general statements like "customers get screwed").
| |
| #** Supported by Evidence: Demonstrable through reputable sources, such as:
| |
| #*** Journalistic reporting from credible outlets.
| |
| #*** A pattern of complaints substantiated by independently verifiable documentation (not just forum anecdotes).
| |
| #*** Publicly available company policies or communications that support the claim.
| |
| # '''Criteria for Exclusion:'''
| |
| #* '''Vague or Broad Claims:''' Submissions that are "all over the place" or fail to present specific, actionable grievances.
| |
| #* '''Unsupported Allegations:''' Complaints based entirely on forum posts or anecdotal evidence without further substantiation.
| |
| #* '''Unrelated to Modern Consumer Exploitation:''' Grievances about customer service quality, forum moderation, or minor feature changes that do not rise to the level of systemic consumer abuse.
| |
| # '''Breakdown of Relevant Issues (If Verified):'''
| |
| #* Denied Warranty:
| |
| #** Include if a systemic pattern is proven (e.g., a consistent and deliberate policy of denying warranty claims across regions).
| |
| #* Features Removed After Updates:
| |
| #** Include if the feature removal is significant and part of a broader trend of diminishing product functionality through updates.
| |
| #** Exclude if the issue is minor, such as changes to aesthetic or trivial features, or subjective complaints (e.g., "the game character I liked was nerfed").
| |
| #* Customer Service Failures:
| |
| #** Include only if there is significant evidence that the company has deliberately engineered poor customer service to prevent claims (e.g., health insurance-style intentional delays or barriers).
| |
| #** Exclude general complaints about poor support or unhelpful forum moderators.
| |
| # '''Tone and Format:'''
| |
| #* Submissions must avoid inflammatory language and accusations without basis (e.g., "paid assholes by Lenovo").
| |
| #* Moderators should reject submissions that include excessive venting or are written in a "Yelp-like" tone, focusing instead on factual, neutral reporting.
| |
| | |
| ----
| |
| | |
| ==== Moderator Action Plan: ====
| |
| | |
| # Verify Specificity:
| |
| #* Ask: What is the clear grievance being presented? Is it specific and tied to a systemic issue, or is it a vague general complaint?
| |
| # Request Supporting Evidence:
| |
| #* If the claim has potential but lacks documentation, flag it for follow-up or request additional information from the submitter.
| |
| # Break Issues into Relevant Categories:
| |
| #* Split broader submissions into separate incidents if multiple distinct issues are raised (e.g., warranty denial, feature removal).
| |
| # Reject if Exclusion Criteria Apply:
| |
| #* Submissions focusing solely on customer service tone or forum moderation should be rejected. | |
|
| |
|
| ---- | | ---- |
| Line 342: |
Line 242: |
| # Customer Service Quality: | | # Customer Service Quality: |
| #* '''Not included.''' Complaints about forum moderators or customer support quality (e.g., "paid assholes by Lenovo") lack relevance to modern consumer protection. | | #* '''Not included.''' Complaints about forum moderators or customer support quality (e.g., "paid assholes by Lenovo") lack relevance to modern consumer protection. |
|
| |
| ----By structuring the rule this way, moderators can objectively assess whether submissions align with the wiki’s purpose, ensuring only well-documented, systemic issues make it through while providing a clear path for submitters to refine their cases if necessary.
| |
|
| |
| === Case 4 ===
| |
|
| |
| ==== Rule for Submissions Highlighting Known Practices: ====
| |
|
| |
| # '''Criteria for Inclusion:'''
| |
| #* Submissions may only be included if they:
| |
| #** Provide '''new information''' about a company’s practices that significantly adds to public understanding of the issue.
| |
| #** Highlight a '''specific incident''' that demonstrates an emerging trend or unexplored aspect of a broader problem.
| |
| #* Submissions related to '''well-known and documented practices''' must bring substantial additional value (e.g., new evidence, data, or systemic changes).
| |
| # '''Criteria for Exclusion:'''
| |
| #* Submissions recounting '''commonplace examples''' of already well-documented corporate behavior (e.g., Apple’s high repair costs or refusal to repair components) will not be included.
| |
| #* Submissions that do not provide broader systemic insight beyond an individual anecdote are not suitable, even if they confirm an existing issue.
| |
| # '''Integration into Existing Content:'''
| |
| #* If the incident reinforces a '''widely recognized issue''', it may be referenced or cited as part of a larger page (e.g., "Apple's repair policies"), but only if it provides unique or corroborative evidence.
| |
| # '''Tone and Presentation:'''
| |
| #* Submissions must avoid unnecessary editorializing (e.g., "Apple are bastards"), focusing instead on factual descriptions of the issue and its implications.
| |
|
| |
|
| ---- | | ---- |
| | | #* |
| ==== Moderator Action Plan: ====
| |
| | |
| # Assess Contribution to Understanding:
| |
| #* Ask: Does this submission reveal anything new about the company’s practices, or is it a redundant example of a known issue?
| |
| # Check Relevance for Existing Pages:
| |
| #* If the issue fits into a broader, well-documented systemic practice, determine whether the submission adds sufficient new detail or evidence to be cited.
| |
| # Reject If Insufficiently Notable:
| |
| #* Submissions that merely confirm an established problem without adding meaningful context or evidence should be rejected. | |
|
| |
|
| ---- | | ---- |
| Line 385: |
Line 258: |
| # Exclusion: | | # Exclusion: |
| #* Not included as a standalone page. The submission lacks new or notable information and only serves as minor confirmation of an existing issue. | | #* Not included as a standalone page. The submission lacks new or notable information and only serves as minor confirmation of an existing issue. |
|
| |
| ----By emphasizing the need for new insights or systemic relevance, this rule ensures the wiki remains focused on providing valuable and unique information, rather than becoming cluttered with redundant anecdotes. Moderators can also use this rule to guide users toward refining their submissions to better align with the mission.
| |
|
| |
| === Case 5 ===
| |
|
| |
| ==== Rule for Submissions Involving Intellectual Property (IP) or Idea Theft: ====
| |
|
| |
| # '''Criteria for Inclusion:'''
| |
| #* Submissions related to IP theft or idea disputes may only be included if they:
| |
| #** Provide '''clear, verifiable evidence''' of the company’s alleged misconduct (e.g., documentation of the idea submission, subsequent use by the company without credit or compensation, and relevant communications).
| |
| #** Demonstrate a '''systemic issue''' that aligns with the wiki's focus on modern consumer exploitation (e.g., patterns of corporations exploiting small inventors or disregarding intellectual property rights to suppress competition).
| |
| # '''Criteria for Exclusion:'''
| |
| #* Submissions are excluded if they:
| |
| #** Are based solely on unverified claims or personal anecdotes without supporting evidence.
| |
| #** Do not involve consumer exploitation or practices directly related to ownership, privacy, or repair rights.
| |
| #** Focus on moral arguments (e.g., “not acting on a life-saving idea is immoral”) rather than systemic abuse or actionable misconduct.
| |
| #* The wiki is not a platform for personal disputes, promotional efforts, or unverified accusations against corporations.
| |
| # '''Moderator Guidance:'''
| |
| #* Evaluate whether the submission contributes to understanding '''modern systemic exploitation''' (e.g., if Apple or other corporations have a documented history of exploiting inventors or IP holders).
| |
| #* Encourage submitters to provide supporting evidence if the claim has potential relevance but lacks documentation.
| |
| # '''Tone and Intent:'''
| |
| #* Submissions must focus on facts and avoid emotional appeals or promotional language (e.g., “this idea could save thousands of lives” or “Apple is immoral”).
| |
|
| |
|
| ---- | | ---- |
| | | #* |
| ==== Moderator Action Plan: ====
| |
| | |
| # Verify Evidence:
| |
| #* Ask: Is there clear documentation of the idea being stolen or misused? Is this part of a broader pattern by the company?
| |
| # Assess Systemic Relevance:
| |
| #* Determine if the issue reflects a systemic practice that fits the wiki’s mission of documenting modern consumer exploitation.
| |
| # Reject If Unsupported:
| |
| #* If the claim lacks evidence or relevance, reject the submission with an explanation and suggest other avenues (e.g., legal counsel, IP advocacy organizations). | |
|
| |
|
| ---- | | ---- |
| Line 432: |
Line 275: |
| #* The submission is rejected due to lack of evidence and irrelevance to the wiki’s mission. | | #* The submission is rejected due to lack of evidence and irrelevance to the wiki’s mission. |
|
| |
|
| ----This rule ensures the wiki remains focused on its purpose, while guiding moderators to handle IP-related claims with clarity and objectivity. It also establishes a clear boundary to prevent the wiki from becoming a platform for unverified or personal disputes.
| | #* |
| | |
| === Case 6 ===
| |
| | |
| ==== Rule for Submissions Involving Isolated Customer Support or Replacement Issues: ====
| |
| | |
| # '''Criteria for Inclusion:'''
| |
| #* Submissions must demonstrate a '''systemic pattern''' of poor practices by the company (e.g., documented widespread issues with replacements, repairs, or refund policies).
| |
| #* Claims must be supported by '''verifiable evidence''' (e.g., receipts, communications with the company, or reports from other customers showing a consistent issue).
| |
| #* The submission may be included as part of a broader article (e.g., “Apple’s replacement process”) if it provides well-documented, specific insights into systemic practices.
| |
| # '''Criteria for Exclusion:'''
| |
| #* Submissions are excluded if they:
| |
| #** Appear to be '''isolated incidents''' of bad customer support or replacement issues, with no indication of systemic relevance.
| |
| #** Lack verifiable evidence to support the claims (e.g., receipts or documented communications).
| |
| #** Focus on subjective dissatisfaction (e.g., “I couldn’t get a replacement without scratches”) without clear evidence of broader consumer exploitation.
| |
| # '''Moderator Guidance:'''
| |
| #* Evaluate whether the submission highlights a systemic issue or simply describes an individual’s negative experience.
| |
| #* Submissions must clearly contribute to understanding modern consumer exploitation; anecdotal or unverifiable claims do not qualify.
| |
| # '''Integration Into Broader Issues:'''
| |
| #* If the issue aligns with a known systemic practice (e.g., wasteful replacement policies or refusal to properly repair), assess whether the submission provides sufficient evidence to serve as an example within a larger article.
| |
| | |
| ----
| |
| | |
| ==== Moderator Action Plan: ====
| |
| | |
| # Check for Evidence:
| |
| #* Ask: Are there receipts, communications, or other forms of verification to support the claims? Does the case illustrate a systemic practice?
| |
| # Assess Relevance:
| |
| #* Determine if the issue aligns with broader known issues (e.g., Apple’s wasteful replacement policies) and whether the submission adds meaningful insights.
| |
| # Reject If Isolated or Unverified:
| |
| #* If the submission appears to be an isolated incident or lacks evidence, reject it with an explanation (e.g., suggest documenting the chain of events for future consideration). | |
|
| |
|
| ---- | | ---- |
| Line 476: |
Line 289: |
| # Exclusion: | | # Exclusion: |
| #* The submission is excluded due to its isolated nature and lack of verifiable evidence. However, if properly documented, it might be admissible as an example in a broader article about Apple’s replacement practices. | | #* The submission is excluded due to its isolated nature and lack of verifiable evidence. However, if properly documented, it might be admissible as an example in a broader article about Apple’s replacement practices. |
|
| |
| ----This rule ensures that moderators focus on systemic issues with verifiable evidence while rejecting isolated or anecdotal claims that lack broader relevance, keeping the wiki aligned with its mission.
| |
|
| |
| === Case 7 ===
| |
|
| |
| ==== Rule for Submissions Involving Isolated Incidents or Unverified Claims: ====
| |
|
| |
| # '''Criteria for Inclusion:'''
| |
| #* Submissions may only be included if they:
| |
| #** Provide '''clear and verifiable documentation''' of the incident (e.g., receipts, repair logs, communications with the company, or photographic evidence of damage caused).
| |
| #** Demonstrate a '''broader systemic issue''' tied to company practices (e.g., a pattern of blaming customers for repair issues to deny liability or warranties).
| |
| #** Highlight specific policies or practices by the company that are independently verifiable.
| |
| # '''Criteria for Exclusion:'''
| |
| #* Submissions are excluded if they:
| |
| #** Lack sufficient evidence to verify the events described.
| |
| #** Appear to be '''isolated incidents''' without relevance to a broader systemic pattern.
| |
| #** Are narrated in a way that suggests significant missing context, bias, or unreliability (e.g., "unofficial" repairs not disclosed before official servicing).
| |
| #** Are tied to events in a single foreign location or involve jurisdictional issues that do not demonstrate broader consumer protection concerns.
| |
| # '''Moderators' Noteability Standard:'''
| |
| #* Submissions must meet a basic '''noteability threshold''', contributing unique or compelling evidence to systemic issues already documented in the wiki.
| |
| #* Incidents must serve as either:
| |
| #** A '''case study''' for known practices (if sufficiently documented).
| |
| #** Evidence of an '''emerging trend or pattern''' with credible corroboration.
| |
|
| |
|
| ---- | | ---- |
| | | #* |
| ==== Moderator Action Plan: ====
| |
| | |
| # Evaluate the Narrator and Evidence:
| |
| #* Ask: Is the submitter providing clear, verifiable facts? Are there key details missing that could undermine the credibility of the submission?
| |
| # Assess Noteability and Systemic Relevance:
| |
| #* Determine if the incident ties to a broader systemic practice or policy that the wiki is documenting.
| |
| #* Reject submissions that fail to meet the '''noteability standard''' due to lack of corroboration or isolated nature.
| |
| # Request Clarification:
| |
| #* If the submission has potential but lacks essential details (e.g., who opened the phone, proof of damage caused by Apple), ask for more information before making a decision. | |
|
| |
|
| ---- | | ---- |
| Line 524: |
Line 305: |
| # Exclusion: | | # Exclusion: |
| #* The submission is excluded due to lack of verifiable evidence, potential bias in narration, and insufficient relevance to systemic issues. If better documentation or corroboration arises, it may be reconsidered. | | #* The submission is excluded due to lack of verifiable evidence, potential bias in narration, and insufficient relevance to systemic issues. If better documentation or corroboration arises, it may be reconsidered. |
|
| |
| ----This rule ensures that the wiki maintains high standards for noteability and evidence while rejecting submissions that are unverifiable, overly anecdotal, or biased. It also provides moderators with clear criteria for assessing systemic relevance and credibility.
| |
|
| |
| === Case 8 ===
| |
|
| |
| ==== Rule for Submissions Involving Actions by Individual Employees: ====
| |
|
| |
| # '''Criteria for Inclusion:'''
| |
| #* Submissions may be included if they:
| |
| #** Provide '''substantial evidence''' that the incident reflects an '''unofficial or systemic policy''' of the company (e.g., multiple corroborated reports or documentation suggesting a pattern of similar behavior).
| |
| #** Highlight a failure in '''company oversight or safeguards''' that allowed the incident to occur (e.g., inadequate training, deliberate negligence, or flaws in company systems).
| |
| # '''Criteria for Exclusion:'''
| |
| #* Submissions are excluded if they:
| |
| #** Describe isolated incidents caused by '''rogue or bad employees''' without any evidence that such behavior is linked to company policy, training, or systemic negligence.
| |
| #** Focus on personal discomfort or hypothetical outcomes (e.g., “What if the dog had bitten the driver?”).
| |
| #** Lack evidence or documentation to substantiate the claim (e.g., no video footage, logs, or other records).
| |
| # '''Company Policies and Systems:'''
| |
| #* Submissions may still be considered if they demonstrate:
| |
| #** A failure in '''systems or policies''' that enabled employee misconduct (e.g., drivers accessing unauthorized areas due to flaws in Amazon’s delivery system).
| |
| #** A systemic lack of safeguards to prevent such incidents, even if the individual action was unauthorized.
| |
|
| |
|
| ---- | | ---- |
| | | #* |
| ==== Moderator Action Plan: ====
| |
| | |
| # Evaluate Evidence of Systemic Issues:
| |
| #* Ask: Is there evidence that this incident reflects a broader problem with company policies or systems? Could the behavior result from inadequate safeguards or training?
| |
| # Assess Employee Conduct:
| |
| #* Determine whether the incident is attributable to an individual’s rogue behavior or whether it aligns with a pattern of systemic failure.
| |
| # Reject If Isolated and Unsubstantiated:
| |
| #* If the incident lacks evidence of systemic issues or appears to be an isolated act by an individual, reject it with an explanation. | |
|
| |
|
| ---- | | ---- |