Consumer Rights Wiki talk:Moderators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions
CrookKilla (talk | contribs) →vague Pro-consumer articles definition: Long Reply |
|||
| Line 200: | Line 200: | ||
:Where is the current "Pro-consumer articles definition" or scope policy? | :Where is the current "Pro-consumer articles definition" or scope policy? | ||
:[[Positive_practices]] exist but doesn't answer. | :[[Positive_practices]] exist but doesn't answer. | ||
:Oh, see | :Oh, see [[Category:Pro-consumer_articles]] defines it and just got edited on the 15th. https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=Category:Pro-consumer_articles&diff=prev&oldid=57894 | ||
:@[[User:Mr Pollo|Mr Pollo]], are you open to my idea? I'm reading into [[GrapheneOS]], [[Mullvad]] still being around that a proposal like mine is welcome - unlike some forums, where such a suggestion would be considered 'arguing with the mods'. [[User:CrookKilla|CrookKilla]] ([[User talk:CrookKilla|talk]]) 03:26, 29 June 2026 (UTC) | :@[[User:Mr Pollo|Mr Pollo]], are you open to my idea? I'm reading into [[GrapheneOS]], [[Mullvad]] still being around that a proposal like mine is welcome - unlike some forums, where such a suggestion would be considered 'arguing with the mods'. [[User:CrookKilla|CrookKilla]] ([[User talk:CrookKilla|talk]]) 03:26, 29 June 2026 (UTC) | ||
::I do think that if we were to continue down this route, we do seriously need to consider developing a set of proper criteria, as well as a necessary quality threshold, because only leaving it up to the whims of the bossmann just makes it difficult to sustain autonomy for the wiki [[User:JamesTDG|JamesTDG]] ([[User talk:JamesTDG|talk]]) 05:01, 29 June 2026 (UTC) | ::I do think that if we were to continue down this route, we do seriously need to consider developing a set of proper criteria, as well as a necessary quality threshold, because only leaving it up to the whims of the bossmann just makes it difficult to sustain autonomy for the wiki [[User:JamesTDG|JamesTDG]] ([[User talk:JamesTDG|talk]]) 05:01, 29 June 2026 (UTC) | ||
:::If we don't, we should add 'Such' before 'companies' in | :::If we don't, we should add 'Such' before 'companies' in [[Category:Pro-consumer_articles]] ([https://consumerrights.wiki/w/Category:Pro-consumer_articles] ; Cat link no worky? not in preview.) . We could also blank a few of the counterexample pages, so editors can continue to '''see''' the content that was deemed inappropriate via diff link. An improvement to leaving them tagged as is or with a tag that says they serve as a counterexample. | ||
:::Should [[Policy]] or [[POL]] be a redirect to [[Consumer_Rights_Wiki:Wiki_policy_index]]? [[User:CrookKilla|CrookKilla]] ([[User talk:CrookKilla|talk]]) 14:18, 29 June 2026 (UTC) | :::Should [[Policy]] or [[POL]] be a redirect to [[Consumer_Rights_Wiki:Wiki_policy_index]]? [[User:CrookKilla|CrookKilla]] ([[User talk:CrookKilla|talk]]) 14:18, 29 June 2026 (UTC) | ||
::The thing is, with the pro-consumer article criteria on the category page, we don't want to have pro-consumer products or companies covered to avoid sounding like the wiki has its full support behind them. Take [[Bitwarden]] for example. They are open source and can be self-hosted, but now as it appears they have incidents that can make the wiki look bad if there are biases included in the coverage. | ::The thing is, with the pro-consumer article criteria on the category page, we don't want to have pro-consumer products or companies covered to avoid sounding like the wiki has its full support behind them. Take [[Bitwarden]] for example. They are open source and can be self-hosted, but now as it appears they have incidents that can make the wiki look bad if there are biases included in the coverage. | ||
| Line 210: | Line 210: | ||
::We encourage discussions like these and by no means is this arguing with the mods. @[[User:Keith|Keith]] can explain it better, as we decided this earlier this month in a staff Zoom meeting, but that's the reasoning in a nutshell. [[User:Mr Pollo|Mr Pollo]] ([[User talk:Mr Pollo|talk]]) 21:47, 29 June 2026 (UTC) | ::We encourage discussions like these and by no means is this arguing with the mods. @[[User:Keith|Keith]] can explain it better, as we decided this earlier this month in a staff Zoom meeting, but that's the reasoning in a nutshell. [[User:Mr Pollo|Mr Pollo]] ([[User talk:Mr Pollo|talk]]) 21:47, 29 June 2026 (UTC) | ||
:::Good point to raise. Solution? I don't think there's a major password manager that hasn't had significant issues. I still think using one is a good idea (and I think there's expert consensus on this (and [https://www.securityscientist.net/blog/are-password-managers-safe/] confirms)). A company having a founder or executive having made a political donation is not a sensible exclusion criterion. That's part of not taking sides. | :::Good point to raise. Solution? I don't think there's a major password manager that hasn't had significant issues. I still think using one is a good idea (and I think there's expert consensus on this (and [https://www.securityscientist.net/blog/are-password-managers-safe/] confirms)). A company having a founder or executive having made a political donation is not a sensible exclusion criterion. That's part of not taking sides. | ||
:::Before continuing, I just want to say, I don't mean to reopen discussions on decisions that have already been hashed out and regarding which there's contributor/mod consensus, or already-final management decision. If I'm doing that, let me know. | :::Before continuing, I just want to say, I don't mean to reopen discussions on decisions that have already been hashed out and regarding which there's contributor/mod consensus, or already-final management decision. If I'm doing that, let me know. | ||
:::So, I'm wondering - do you think the necessary solution to the point you raise is to delete the category and not allow it to have any entries? And delete pages that would be entries in the category? Not seeing that as necessary to avoid legal issues. More of an unnecessary (sledgehammer) solution to limit mission creep. | :::So, I'm wondering - do you think the necessary solution to the point you raise is to delete the category and not allow it to have any entries? And delete pages that would be entries in the category? Not seeing that as necessary to avoid legal issues. More of an unnecessary (sledgehammer) solution to limit mission creep. | ||
:::Also, I don't understand what you're saying is an actual problem that the [[Bitwarden]] page is or was an example of. I don't see one. Or you just mean it could be one if badly edited or tagged regarding what you mentioned? I guess I'm seeing a distinction between pages that could be a problem if badly edited and them being a problem now / imminently leading to one. | :::Also, I don't understand what you're saying is an actual problem that the [[Bitwarden]] page is or was an example of. I don't see one. Or you just mean it could be one if badly edited or tagged regarding what you mentioned? I guess I'm seeing a distinction between pages that could be a problem if badly edited and them being a problem now / imminently leading to one. | ||
| Line 217: | Line 217: | ||
:::Oh, I see a significant, fixable problem. [[Consumer Rights Wiki:Moderator guidelines#1. Determining inclusion in the wiki|Consumer Rights Wiki:Moderator guidelines]] is a separate page from [[Consumer Rights Wiki:Inclusion guidelines]] but they are both Inclusion guidelines. But are very different. Would be good to merge 'em? Seeing the latter page prompted me to add the second paragraph, above. Starting to feel like I'm stirring the pot more than I actually want to, that misread into the current situation that where policy edges are to be is still being figured out / are less already-hashed out than they are. | :::Oh, I see a significant, fixable problem. [[Consumer Rights Wiki:Moderator guidelines#1. Determining inclusion in the wiki|Consumer Rights Wiki:Moderator guidelines]] is a separate page from [[Consumer Rights Wiki:Inclusion guidelines]] but they are both Inclusion guidelines. But are very different. Would be good to merge 'em? Seeing the latter page prompted me to add the second paragraph, above. Starting to feel like I'm stirring the pot more than I actually want to, that misread into the current situation that where policy edges are to be is still being figured out / are less already-hashed out than they are. | ||
:::Would be nice if we had the mediawiki gadgets like the one that identifies mods on sight/mouseover. [[User:CrookKilla|CrookKilla]] ([[User talk:CrookKilla|talk]]) 17:56, 30 June 2026 (UTC) | :::Would be nice if we had the mediawiki gadgets like the one that identifies mods on sight/mouseover. [[User:CrookKilla|CrookKilla]] ([[User talk:CrookKilla|talk]]) 17:56, 30 June 2026 (UTC) | ||
::::My apologies regarding Bitwarden, I meant IF we had it as a pro-consumer article or if we recommended it on the mainpage of the wiki, there would have been problems. Currently as it stands, the article meets our inclusion policy. | |||
::::That is not my opinion alone, but a mod/staff consensus decided by me, Keith, @[[User:Sojourna|Sojourna]], @[[User:JakeL|JakeL]], and Sarang alongside another. Unfortunately those articles might be deleted in the near future. [[User:Mr Pollo|Mr Pollo]] ([[User talk:Mr Pollo|talk]]) 21:04, 30 June 2026 (UTC) | |||
==Pocket Cast== | ==Pocket Cast== | ||