Mission statement: Difference between revisions
m I think most of the prior changes are fine, but have added a couple of the commas back in for readability, and changed a couple of 'that's back to 'which's for variety's sake. |
clarified wording on tone usage |
||
| Line 82: | Line 82: | ||
* 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> | * 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. | 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 | * This will be the appropriate tone for all non-theme articles. | ||
=== 'Nice Louis' === | === 'Nice Louis' === | ||
| Line 89: | Line 89: | ||
* 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 explanatory theme articles which cover 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 is the appropriate tone for explanatory theme articles which cover 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, and should instead be reserved for Theme articles. | ||
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. | ||
==== The 'Granny rule' (or, the 'Senator rule')<br>==== | ==== The 'Granny rule' (or, the 'Senator rule')<br>==== | ||