Consumer Rights Wiki:Moderator guidelines: Difference between revisions

← Older edit Newer edit →

VisualWikitext

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 ----
-=== 1. Determining Inclusion in the Wiki ===
+=== 1. Determining Inclusion in the Wiki [mostly done but indentation needs fixing, will do that when I get back] ===
-==== A. General Criteria for Inclusion: ====
+==== A. General Criteria for Inclusion (Non-Theme articles): ====
-A submission is appropriate for the wiki if:
+An article submission is appropriate for the wiki if all of the following can be demonstrated:
+* The article fits into one of the proscribed article types, or has a very compelling reason for not conforming to one of these article types
+* '''If the article is an incident page,''' it describes an issue which fits into one of the following categories:
 # '''Systemic Nature:'''
 #* The incident demonstrates a pattern of systemic abuse, negligence, or policy that aligns with modern consumer exploitation (e.g., revocation of ownership, barriers to repair, forced obsolescence, data misuse).
 #* It is not an isolated or anecdotal incident caused by individual employee misconduct unless it reflects a broader systemic issue.
+#* Note: it is permissible for an incident to be positive, as long as it is both noteable and relevant. A positive incident, however, should not simply be the rolling back of a policy which resulted in a negative incident - it must be an actively positive incident (e.g. a mass refunding of customers in a scenario where the company was not responsible for the failing, and had no obligation to repair the failing)
 # '''Relevance to Modern Consumer Exploitation:'''
 #* The case directly relates to new forms of exploitation outlined in the mission statement (e.g., policies impacting ownership rights, privacy, or repairability).
-#* It does not belong on platforms like Yelp or small claims court (e.g., general customer service issues, personal disputes).
+#* It does not belong on platforms like Yelp (e.g., general customer service issues, personal disputes).
-# '''Verifiable Evidence:'''
-#* The submission includes documentation or credible sources (e.g., receipts, communications, policy documents, public reports) that substantiate the claim.
+* '''If the article is a company page:'''
-#* Allegations are supported by specific details rather than vague or subjective descriptions.
-# '''Tone and Presentation:'''
+# The company is connected to at least one incident which meets the guidelines above
-#* The submission avoids inflammatory language, emotional appeals, or promotional content.
+# The company does not have an existing page, which the artice should be merged with (e.g. if the company has changed names)
-#* It is written in a factual, neutral tone with clear focus on the issue.
+# Note:
+* '''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 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)
+* '''For all pages:'''
+* '''Verifiable Evidence:'''
+# In order for an article to be appropriate for submission, it must be verifiable. This does NOT mean that it must be properly sourced and fully compliant with wiki policy from its very creation. It instead means that it must be reasonably possible to source evidence which could support its claims. If the article relates to an issue which has not been documented by any acceptable source, then the article is unverifiable, and should be removed.
+# Allegations are supported by specific details rather than vague or subjective descriptions.
+* '''Tone and Presentation:'''
+** The submission avoids inflammatory language, emotional appeals, or promotional content. Any article which is obviously fake or appears more akin to an angry yelp review than something which belongs on this Wiki should be marked for removal, or rapidly edited to a point where it does not violate this rule.
+==== B. General Criteria for Inclusion (Theme articles): ====
-==== B. Automatic Exclusion Criteria: ====
+* The article must describe a theme which is relevant to Consumer Protection (new or old).
+* The article must not be about a theme which is already present in the Wiki under a different name. In the case where two articles cover the same theme, they should either be merged, or the worse (as decided by admins or by a talk page discussion) of the two should be deleted.
+==== C. Automatic Exclusion Criteria: ====
 '''A submission should be rejected if:'''
 * It describes an isolated incident with no evidence of systemic relevance.
 * It is based on unverifiable claims or relies solely on anecdotal evidence.
-* It lacks a clear connection to modern consumer exploitation as defined in the mission statement.
+* 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.
+*
 ----
-=== 2. Identifying Changes Needed for Inclusion ===
+=== 2. Identifying Changes Needed for Inclusion [below here still needs doing.] ===
 ==== A. Evidence Requirements: ====