Consumer Rights Wiki:Wiki content policies - Revision history

JackFromWisconsin: /* Verifiability */ add link to main page

2025-08-19T02:30:54Z

Verifiability: add link to main page

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:30, 19 August 2025
Line 16:		Line 16:
	Attention should be paid to Wikipedia’s [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch\|guidelines on word choice]]. General principles, such as avoiding the use of ‘claimed’ when it has negative connotations and opting for a neutral term like ‘stated’, remain applicable. As previously mentioned, the primary purpose of Tier 2 and 3 articles is to serve as a record and repository for evidence of anti-consumer activity. A fair and neutral approach is essential for the Wiki to be taken seriously.		Attention should be paid to Wikipedia’s [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch\|guidelines on word choice]]. General principles, such as avoiding the use of ‘claimed’ when it has negative connotations and opting for a neutral term like ‘stated’, remain applicable. As previously mentioned, the primary purpose of Tier 2 and 3 articles is to serve as a record and repository for evidence of anti-consumer activity. A fair and neutral approach is essential for the Wiki to be taken seriously.
	==Verifiability==		==Verifiability==
			{{Main\|Consumer Rights Wiki:Verifiability}}
	Our primary deviation from Wikipedia's approach to verifiability lies in the range of acceptable sources. Modern consumer protection issues are often inadequately covered by the ‘reliable sources’ preferred by Wikipedia, necessitating an adjustment in our range of acceptable sources.		Our primary deviation from Wikipedia's approach to verifiability lies in the range of acceptable sources. Modern consumer protection issues are often inadequately covered by the ‘reliable sources’ preferred by Wikipedia, necessitating an adjustment in our range of acceptable sources.

Keith at 10:34, 7 May 2025

2025-05-07T10:34:45Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:34, 7 May 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
	[[Category:~~CAT~~]]		[[Category:CRW]]
	While our ultimate goal is to establish a comprehensive set of policies on the Consumer Rights Wiki, there are numerous areas where our approach aligns with Wikipedia's. This document outlines how we adapt Wikipedia's three primary content policies — [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view\|Neutral Point of View (NPOV)]], [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:Verifiability\|Verifiability]], and [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:No_original_research\|No Original Research]] — and highlights both similarities and differences in our approach.		While our ultimate goal is to establish a comprehensive set of policies on the Consumer Rights Wiki, there are numerous areas where our approach aligns with Wikipedia's. This document outlines how we adapt Wikipedia's three primary content policies — [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view\|Neutral Point of View (NPOV)]], [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:Verifiability\|Verifiability]], and [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:No_original_research\|No Original Research]] — and highlights both similarities and differences in our approach.

Keith: CAT -> CRW

2025-04-28T18:43:23Z

CAT -> CRW

Keith: Keith moved page Consumer Action Taskforce:Wiki Content Policies to Consumer Action Taskforce:Wiki content policies: Misspelled title: Not in sentence case

2025-01-26T18:32:41Z

Keith moved page Consumer Action Taskforce:Wiki Content Policies to Consumer Action Taskforce:Wiki content policies: Misspelled title: Not in sentence case

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:32, 26 January 2025
(No difference)

Kostas: Kostas moved page Wiki Content Policies to Consumer Action Taskforce:Wiki Content Policies: move to proper namespace

2025-01-26T11:49:33Z

Kostas moved page Wiki Content Policies to Consumer Action Taskforce:Wiki Content Policies: move to proper namespace

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:49, 26 January 2025
(No difference)

Atsumari at 09:22, 16 January 2025

2025-01-16T09:22:17Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:22, 16 January 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
			[[Category:CAT]]
	While our ultimate goal is to establish a comprehensive set of policies on the CAT Wiki, there are numerous areas where our approach aligns with Wikipedia's. This document outlines how we adapt Wikipedia's three primary content policies — [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view\|Neutral Point of View (NPOV)]], [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:Verifiability\|Verifiability]], and [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:No_original_research\|No Original Research]] — and highlights both similarities and differences in our approach.		While our ultimate goal is to establish a comprehensive set of policies on the CAT Wiki, there are numerous areas where our approach aligns with Wikipedia's. This document outlines how we adapt Wikipedia's three primary content policies — [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view\|Neutral Point of View (NPOV)]], [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:Verifiability\|Verifiability]], and [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:No_original_research\|No Original Research]] — and highlights both similarities and differences in our approach.

Christoph Howard: Protected "Wiki Content Policies" ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (indefinite) [Move=Allow only administrators] (indefinite))

2025-01-15T00:32:40Z

Protected "Wiki Content Policies" ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (indefinite) [Move=Allow only administrators] (indefinite))

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:32, 15 January 2025
(No difference)

Kostas: Reverted edit by Kostas (talk) to last revision by Keith

2025-01-14T22:43:35Z

Reverted edit by Kostas (talk) to last revision by Keith

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:43, 14 January 2025
Line 39:		Line 39:

	Facts and opinions are defined as they are within Wikipedia’s NPOV guidelines. Generally, facts should come from a primary source (i.e., a party to events or a party competent to perform primary technical analysis/research on the issue), and opinions and reactions may come from the best available sources, as defined by their notability and competency.		Facts and opinions are defined as they are within Wikipedia’s NPOV guidelines. Generally, facts should come from a primary source (i.e., a party to events or a party competent to perform primary technical analysis/research on the issue), and opinions and reactions may come from the best available sources, as defined by their notability and competency.

	~~[[Category:CAT]]~~

Kostas: add prelim category

2025-01-14T11:00:52Z

add prelim category

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:00, 14 January 2025
Line 39:		Line 39:

	Facts and opinions are defined as they are within Wikipedia’s NPOV guidelines. Generally, facts should come from a primary source (i.e., a party to events or a party competent to perform primary technical analysis/research on the issue), and opinions and reactions may come from the best available sources, as defined by their notability and competency.		Facts and opinions are defined as they are within Wikipedia’s NPOV guidelines. Generally, facts should come from a primary source (i.e., a party to events or a party competent to perform primary technical analysis/research on the issue), and opinions and reactions may come from the best available sources, as defined by their notability and competency.

			[[Category:CAT]]

Keith: Keith moved page Wiki Principles to Wiki Content Policies: more accurate name

2025-01-07T22:40:05Z

Keith moved page Wiki Principles to Wiki Content Policies: more accurate name

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:40, 7 January 2025
(No difference)

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:43, 28 April 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
	[[Category:CAT]]		[[Category:CAT]]
	While our ultimate goal is to establish a comprehensive set of policies on the ~~CAT~~ Wiki, there are numerous areas where our approach aligns with Wikipedia's. This document outlines how we adapt Wikipedia's three primary content policies — [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view\|Neutral Point of View (NPOV)]], [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:Verifiability\|Verifiability]], and [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:No_original_research\|No Original Research]] — and highlights both similarities and differences in our approach.		While our ultimate goal is to establish a comprehensive set of policies on the Consumer Rights Wiki, there are numerous areas where our approach aligns with Wikipedia's. This document outlines how we adapt Wikipedia's three primary content policies — [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view\|Neutral Point of View (NPOV)]], [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:Verifiability\|Verifiability]], and [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:No_original_research\|No Original Research]] — and highlights both similarities and differences in our approach.

	The key distinction between Wikipedia's approach and our own is that [[Mission statement\|our core mission]] includes the promotion of a consumer rights agenda, in addition to the accurate documentation and presentation of information. Fully adopting certain Wikipedia policies, such as NPOV, would conflict with our mission to advocate for consumer rights. Nevertheless, we aim to be a reliable source of information and avoid misrepresenting the events we cover.		The key distinction between Wikipedia's approach and our own is that [[Mission statement\|our core mission]] includes the promotion of a consumer rights agenda, in addition to the accurate documentation and presentation of information. Fully adopting certain Wikipedia policies, such as NPOV, would conflict with our mission to advocate for consumer rights. Nevertheless, we aim to be a reliable source of information and avoid misrepresenting the events we cover.
Line 8:		Line 8:
	The NPOV principle will be applied as follows:		The NPOV principle will be applied as follows:

	* For theme articles, NPOV can be largely set aside. In these articles, the Wiki’s voice can clearly take a stance on the issue at hand. This does not mean disregarding tone guidelines (see: tone guidelines), omitting counter-arguments, or failing to cite facts. It simply allows for the use of direct statements like ‘X is a major issue facing consumers today’ without needing to cite a source (e.g., it is unnecessary to write: ‘Y stated in a video that X is a major issue facing consumers today’). An example of a theme article that meets these criteria can be found [here].		*For theme articles, NPOV can be largely set aside. In these articles, the Wiki’s voice can clearly take a stance on the issue at hand. This does not mean disregarding tone guidelines (see: tone guidelines), omitting counter-arguments, or failing to cite facts. It simply allows for the use of direct statements like ‘X is a major issue facing consumers today’ without needing to cite a source (e.g., it is unnecessary to write: ‘Y stated in a video that X is a major issue facing consumers today’). An example of a theme article that meets these criteria can be found [here].

	* For Tier 2 and 3 articles, NPOV will be fully implemented. To maintain credibility as a repository of accurate information, it is crucial that consumer protection-related incidents are documented accurately and fairly.		*For Tier 2 and 3 articles, NPOV will be fully implemented. To maintain credibility as a repository of accurate information, it is crucial that consumer protection-related incidents are documented accurately and fairly.

	It is beneficial to review Wikipedia’s guidance on the concept of [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:UNDUE\|undue weight]], which explain how we can highlight anti-consumer practices while maintaining NPOV. If there is clear and overwhelming evidence of a company's anti-consumer behavior, and the only opposition is a weak rebuttal from the company, presenting both viewpoints equally would create a false balance and give undue weight to the company's argument.		It is beneficial to review Wikipedia’s guidance on the concept of [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:UNDUE\|undue weight]], which explain how we can highlight anti-consumer practices while maintaining NPOV. If there is clear and overwhelming evidence of a company's anti-consumer behavior, and the only opposition is a weak rebuttal from the company, presenting both viewpoints equally would create a false balance and give undue weight to the company's argument.
Line 25:		Line 25:
	This does not mean any source can be used. As a rule of thumb, any primary research source should meet at least one of these criteria:		This does not mean any source can be used. As a rule of thumb, any primary research source should meet at least one of these criteria:

	* Well-established and generally reliable. This refers to a source with a long track record of publishing information related to the article's topic and likely has an editorial or review process for its publications.		*Well-established and generally reliable. This refers to a source with a long track record of publishing information related to the article's topic and likely has an editorial or review process for its publications.

	* A source with deep expertise on the topic, stating something non-controversial within their field. For example, if an experienced TV repair technician claims that a specific TV model has a design flaw, and this assertion is unchallenged by peers, it can be accepted.		*A source with deep expertise on the topic, stating something non-controversial within their field. For example, if an experienced TV repair technician claims that a specific TV model has a design flaw, and this assertion is unchallenged by peers, it can be accepted.

	* A source indisputably linked to the topic. If a company issues a press release or an individual involved in an incident makes a statement, it can be cited as ‘Y responded to the event, stating…’, and this statement can be part of the core timeline of events within an incident.		*A source indisputably linked to the topic. If a company issues a press release or an individual involved in an incident makes a statement, it can be cited as ‘Y responded to the event, stating…’, and this statement can be part of the core timeline of events within an incident.

	When questioned about your choice of source, you should be confident in defending it as meeting these requirements and being a valuable source of information for the article. It is acceptable to leave some statements as ‘citation needed’, but excessive use will result in a page being marked ‘Needs additional verification’.		When questioned about your choice of source, you should be confident in defending it as meeting these requirements and being a valuable source of information for the article. It is acceptable to leave some statements as ‘citation needed’, but excessive use will result in a page being marked ‘Needs additional verification’.