Please note that all submissions to the site are subject to the wiki's licence, CC 4.0 BY-SA, as found here
Talk:Steam: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
While I really like what's being done here with regards to the commentary, my concern is that it currently results in a lot of qualitative/judgemental statements being made in the Wiki's voice, on a page which is not supposed to be too editorial. In this case, I think it's been done quite well and the statements are largely reasonable, but it does still violate NPOV. I think exactly how this should be handled, and whether editorial content is appropriate on company articles, is something that might need to be discussed at a site/admin level. If editorial content is to exist on company articles, I think it almost certainly should be in its own section/box, as it is here [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 20:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | While I really like what's being done here with regards to the commentary, my concern is that it currently results in a lot of qualitative/judgemental statements being made in the Wiki's voice, on a page which is not supposed to be too editorial. In this case, I think it's been done quite well and the statements are largely reasonable, but it does still violate NPOV. I think exactly how this should be handled, and whether editorial content is appropriate on company articles, is something that might need to be discussed at a site/admin level. If editorial content is to exist on company articles, I think it almost certainly should be in its own section/box, as it is here [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 20:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
: As a first thought I would say that avoiding the use of "profile" or "status" to decribe the stanve of company policy regarding Privacy,Transparency and Freedom would help limit the room for subjective statements. As it stands in this case the bullet points are factual and neutral enough, replacing "profile" with "key points" (or even "terms of service summary") and not using status as a way of scoring would help bring this alot closer inline with the aim of a company page. [[User:Kostas|Kostas]] ([[User talk:Kostas|talk]]) 23:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 23:47, 17 January 2025
Tone concerns with regard to the Consumer Protection Profile
While I really like what's being done here with regards to the commentary, my concern is that it currently results in a lot of qualitative/judgemental statements being made in the Wiki's voice, on a page which is not supposed to be too editorial. In this case, I think it's been done quite well and the statements are largely reasonable, but it does still violate NPOV. I think exactly how this should be handled, and whether editorial content is appropriate on company articles, is something that might need to be discussed at a site/admin level. If editorial content is to exist on company articles, I think it almost certainly should be in its own section/box, as it is here Keith (talk) 20:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- As a first thought I would say that avoiding the use of "profile" or "status" to decribe the stanve of company policy regarding Privacy,Transparency and Freedom would help limit the room for subjective statements. As it stands in this case the bullet points are factual and neutral enough, replacing "profile" with "key points" (or even "terms of service summary") and not using status as a way of scoring would help bring this alot closer inline with the aim of a company page. Kostas (talk) 23:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
