|
|
| Line 86: |
Line 86: |
| * The citing of sources for opinion or commentary should present a balanced and rational view, without giving undue weight to fringe opinions. | | * The citing of sources for opinion or commentary should present a balanced and rational view, without giving undue weight to fringe opinions. |
|
| |
|
| ----
| | == Example Application of Rules == |
| | | '''Case: Amazon Broke Into My Garage to deliver my parcel!''' |
| = Moderator guidelines =
| |
| | |
| === Moderator Action Plans ===
| |
| This action plan provides a step-by-step guide for moderators to objectively determine whether a submission should be included in the wiki. Follow these steps to evaluate each submission:
| |
| | |
| ==== 1. Assess Systemic Relevance ====
| |
| | |
| * '''Ask:''' Does the submission highlight a systemic issue or a broader pattern of modern consumer exploitation (e.g., revocation of ownership, privacy violations, barriers to repair, forced obsolescence)?
| |
| * Reject If:
| |
| ** The incident is an isolated or anecdotal occurrence with no evidence of systemic relevance.
| |
| ** The issue relates to personal disputes, local business misconduct, or rogue employee actions without ties to company policy or systemic failure.
| |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| ==== 2. Verify Evidence ====
| |
| | |
| * Ask: Does the submission provide credible, verifiable evidence to support the claims?
| |
| ** Examples of acceptable evidence:
| |
| *** Receipts, repair logs, or communications with the company.
| |
| *** Video footage or images corroborating the incident.
| |
| *** Credible reports from reputable sources or multiple corroborating testimonies.
| |
| * Reject If:
| |
| ** The submission lacks evidence or relies solely on personal anecdotes, hearsay, or unverifiable claims.
| |
| | |
| | |
| ==== 3. Evaluate Noteability ====
| |
| | |
| * Ask: Does the submission provide unique or substantial insights into systemic issues already documented in the wiki?
| |
| ** Include If:
| |
| *** The submission adds new information or specific examples to a known problem.
| |
| *** It demonstrates a broader trend, policy, or emerging issue that aligns with the wiki's mission.
| |
| ** Reject If:
| |
| *** The submission only confirms a widely recognized issue without offering new insights or significant value.
| |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| ==== 4. Check Alignment With Mission ====
| |
| | |
| * Ask: Does the submission directly relate to modern consumer exploitation as defined in the mission statement?
| |
| ** Include If:
| |
| *** The issue demonstrates systemic abuses enabled by technology, complex legal mechanisms, or corporate policies that undermine consumer rights.
| |
| ** Reject If:
| |
| *** The incident belongs in a Yelp review or small claims court (e.g., poor customer service, local disputes, minor grievances).
| |
| *** The focus is on employee rights, labor disputes, or government misconduct unrelated to consumer protection regulation.
| |
| | |
| | |
| ==== 5. Confirm Tone and Presentation ====
| |
| | |
| * Ask: Does the submission maintain a factual, neutral tone that aligns with the wiki’s standards?
| |
| ** Include If:
| |
| *** The submission avoids inflammatory language, personal grievances, and speculative hypotheticals.
| |
| *** It is concise, well-organized, and clearly focuses on the issue.
| |
| ** Reject If:
| |
| *** The tone is overly emotional, combative, or promotional.
| |
| | |
| | |
| ==== 6. Request Additional Information (If Needed) ====
| |
| | |
| * Ask: Does the submission have potential but lack critical details or evidence?
| |
| ** Action:
| |
| *** Request the submitter provide additional evidence, such as receipts, documentation, or corroborating reports.
| |
| *** Clarify missing context or connections to systemic practices.
| |
| | |
| | |
| ==== 7. Consider Integration Into Broader Issues ====
| |
| | |
| * Ask: Does the submission fit into a larger article about a systemic issue already in the wiki?
| |
| ** Include As Part Of Another Page If:
| |
| *** The incident is a minor example of a larger issue but offers specific, verifiable details that enhance understanding.
| |
| ** Reject If:
| |
| *** The submission does not provide sufficient value even as a supporting example.
| |
| | |
| | |
| === Final Checklist for Moderators ===
| |
| | |
| # Does the submission highlight systemic company practices or policies?
| |
| # Does it relate to modern consumer exploitation as defined in the mission statement?
| |
| # Is there sufficient, verifiable evidence to support the claims?
| |
| # Does it provide unique or substantial value to the wiki?
| |
| # Is the tone factual, neutral, and aligned with the wiki’s standards?
| |
| # Could the submission fit into a larger article about a broader issue?
| |
| # Are there missing details that the submitter could provide to strengthen the case?
| |
| | |
| ----
| |
| | |
| === Example Application of Rules ===
| |
| | |
| ==== Case: Amazon Broke Into My Garage ====
| |
| | |
| # '''Inclusion Decision:''' | | # '''Inclusion Decision:''' |
| #* '''Not included''': The submission describes an isolated incident caused by an employee, with no evidence of systemic policy or failure. It lacks corroborating evidence and relevance to modern consumer exploitation. | | #* '''Not included''': The submission describes an isolated incident caused by an employee, with no evidence of systemic policy or failure. It lacks corroborating evidence and relevance to modern consumer exploitation. |
| Line 184: |
Line 95: |
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
| ==== Case: AppleCare Sucks ====
| |
|
| |
|
| | '''Case: AppleCare Sucks, they''' |
| # '''Inclusion Decision:''' | | # '''Inclusion Decision:''' |
| #* '''Not included''': The submission lacks evidence of systemic issues and appears anecdotal. The tone is emotional and lacks verifiable claims. | | #* '''Not included''': The submission lacks evidence of systemic issues and appears anecdotal. The tone is emotional and lacks verifiable claims. |
| Line 191: |
Line 102: |
| #* Supply receipts or documented communications showing a pattern of mishandled replacements. | | #* Supply receipts or documented communications showing a pattern of mishandled replacements. |
| #* Tie the issue to Apple’s broader repair or replacement practices. | | #* Tie the issue to Apple’s broader repair or replacement practices. |
| | | '''Example Application:''' |
| == Example applications of rules: ==
| | * The Samsung Fold screen issue described in the email: |
| | | ** '''Not included:''' It is based on a single user’s experience and lacks substantial evidence of a widespread issue. |
| **
| | ** '''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. |
| * '''Example Application:'''
| |
| ** The Samsung Fold screen issue described in the email:
| |
| *** '''Not included:''' It is based on a single user’s experience and lacks substantial evidence of a widespread issue.
| |
| *** '''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.
| |
| | |
| **
| |
| * '''Example Application:'''
| |
| ** Eugene Harrington case (linked video):
| |
| *** '''Not included:''' This is an example of a dishonest contractor operating at a local level, with no evidence of systemic relevance or practices tied to modern consumer exploitation.
| |
| *** '''Alternative action:''' Suggest filing complaints with local consumer protection agencies or posting reviews to alert other potential customers.
| |
| | |
| | |
| | |
|
| |
|
| ==== Example Application: ==== | | ==== Example Application: ==== |