Progress Report 2024-01-07

i am making a progress report on all of the work i did to developing the wiki today. my goal is for this to be ready for launch within a week or so. without making any serious changes to wording can you fix inconsistencies or oddly worded sentences here that make it difficult for people i am managing to read. my goal is to make it obvious what they need to do and feel like it isn't too complicated to get involved

What Got Done & Prerequisites For Launch

A lot got done today with the help of all of you, especially Keith. Keith is a rockstar.

• Creation of Moderator Guidelines providing:
  • rules for posting proper articles with expectations for authors
  • moderator checklists to determine article’s eligibility for inclusion in wiki.
  • This was made by aggregating all the comments I made, Keith made, etc, plus the mission statement, into ChatGPT.
• Refining of anti-spam rules based on spam experiences with my other public wiki.
• creation of proper warning pages pages for abusefilter rules
  • spam keywords warning
  • suspicious urls warning
  • removing stub notice as unprivileged user warning
• Creation of a stub notice for incomplete articles
• Creation of Living Persons policy
• Creation of appeals discord channel for people to make their case on why articles with warning stub notices on them should have the notice removed. if an article was flagged as not good enough, authors are encouraged to improve the article until it meets inclusion standards.

TO DO - Proper rules must be created to replace the TEMPORARY RULES LINKED HERE

WE CANNOT HAVE AI GENERATED RULES. THIS IS ONLY A FIRST DRAFT WIREFRAME STARTING POINT AND MUST BE EDITED TO BECOME REAL, USEFUL RULES AND CHECKLISTS. (from Keith: I'm working on this. should get it, or at least a good chunk of it, done tomorrow, if all goes well)

Stub notice

A Stub Notice has been made to be posted above articles.

USAGE: Place the following at the top of an article in the source editor , not the visual editor.

{{StubNotice}}

This notice will be placed on articles that have potential to be compliant with our mission statement and rules, that are not yet so.

Abusefilter rule was added to ensure that a normal user can’t remove a stub notice, and a warning page was created.

TO DO - example articles for each type in article types page linked here

We need a single sample article for each of these types so that we can point users to what an ideal article would look like. Someone needs to write one of each!

1. Themes High-level articles explaining and justifying core consumer protection concepts, providing examples of harm caused and their broader implications.
2. Companies Articles offering an overview of a company, its size, activities, and a summary of its consumer protection practices and controversies.
3. Product Lines Pages dedicated to specific product lines when discussing all of a company's activities in one article would be too cumbersome.
4. Individuals Biographical articles about key individuals with significant influence over consumer protection-related decisions or incidents.
5. Incidents Detailed accounts of specific events or chains of events involving anti-consumer activities, with citations and a focus on factual reporting.
6. Sources Articles describing information sources for the wiki, detailing their credibility and relevance, and providing suggestions for further article creation.
7. Transcripts Pages containing machine-generated transcripts of relevant videos, summaries, and tags to aid in article creation and avoid duplication.

TO DO - stub notice tests

1. Make sample article.
2. Try to add stub notice as an admin.
3. Try to remove stub notice as an anonymous user, or normally logged in user. This should not work, as per rules set in abusefilter.

• Removing that stub notice should result in this error message.

4. Try to remove stub notice as an administrator. This should work, as per rules set in abusefilter.

TO DO - Stub notice variants

As well as a stub notice (for articles that are just way too short/under-detailed, we need the following two notices:

• Needs additional verification (for an article that might be basically fine, but is dangerously under-cited, or the citations are very sus. should only lead to deletion if it's in massive violation of NOR and there's no good sources to fix it with)
• Questionable Relevance (for an article that is on the edge of not being relevant/being a yelp-like thing. Basically a limbo to put articles in where 'you'd better give a good reason for this article to exist, or else it's not going to exist in a few days!')

On a technical level, these should be implemented in much the same way as the stub - we just need different notices for different problem articles.

TO DO - stub moderation guidelines must be added to moderation/rules

These rules must be made clear in simple terms in the moderation guidelines in an easy to follow way:

• If an article is compliant according to the Moderator Guidelines, it stays.
• If an article has POTENTIAL to be compliant according to the Moderator Guidelines, it will have a Stub Notice placed at the top of the article as a warning with

❗Article Status Notice: This Article is a stub

Notice: This Article Requires Expansion

This article has needs additional work to meet the wiki's Content Guidelines and be in line with our Mission Statement for comprehensive coverage of consumer protection issues. Specifically:

• This article needs to be expanded to provide meaningful information.
• This article requires additional verifiable evidence to demonstrate systemic impact
• More documentation is needed to establish how this reflects broader consumer protection concerns
• The connection between individual incidents and company-wide practices needs to be better established

How You Can Help:

• Add documented examples with verifiable sources
• Provide evidence of similar incidents affecting other consumers
• Include relevant company policies or communications that demonstrate systemic practices
• Link to credible reporting that covers these issues

This notice will be removed once sufficient documentation has been added to establish the systemic nature of these issues. Once you believe the article is ready to have its notice removed, visit the discord and post to the #appeals channel.

which can only be removed by an administrator after the article has been appealed in the #appeals channel of the discord server.

• If an article has NO CHANCE OF BEING COMPLIANT, it will not be deleted. Rather:
  • the article will be edited to represent that it is non-compliant by an administrator
  • the article will have its contents below the administrator’s edit removed.
  • Links to the article should be removed
  • the article will maintain its edit history so that it can be referred back to if necessary, _as long as the article:
    1. does not threaten violence
    2. include/suggest illegal activity
    3. target harassment in obvious, explicit terms
    4. doxx an entity/individual that should remain private.removing the content of the article
  • (if numerous attempts are made to revive the article without good reason) the placeholder article should be locked.
• If the article is pure spam/shitposting:
  • remove the article
  • block the user
  • ban them by IP address
  • audit other articles/contributions they’ve created for related shitposting. lean on the side of removing all of their creations/edits based on the severity of shitposts.

TO DO - Captcha tests

All of these tasks can be tested currently, before I migrate over to hcaptcha.

• Make sure that you do not need a captcha if you are someone I have confirmed is a mod.
• Make sure that normal registered users that I have not personally flagged as trusted & anonymous users do need a captcha
• Remind me to switch out the google recaptcha for hcaptcha, since recaptcha is worse.

TO DO - replace google recaptcha with hcaptcha

recaptcha is getting owned on my other wiki. hcaptcha works better, and isn't google.

TO DO - fix video list

NOTE: THIS IS WHERE SOMEONE WITH LINUX SYSADMIN EXPERIENCE WHO CAN DIG INTO AND FIGURE OUT INFRASTRUCTURE STUFF WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL

I will ask people to start out by going through the video list and making an article for each video. Once they have made an article, they will insert their wiki URL to their article into this list so that other users know which articles have been created already, and so moderators can view their articles.

This can be edited in the source editor, but not the visual editor. One of two things must occur:

1. the visual editor is fixed to work with this page.
2. a more simplistic way of creating this page must be done that is still easy on the eyes with the visual editor, while being editable by the visual editor.

Given that this is literally a table of URLs and plaintext, there is no excuse for visualeditor to fail that badly at loading it.

BIG PICTURE ITEMS NECESSARY FOR LAUNCH

We need these:

1. Clear cut rules that are ready to be battle tested.
2. Guidelines for moderators to follow so they know what should and should not be included, that are as objective as possible (draft above)
3. Sample articles of each type demonstrating what we want users to contribute
4. A fixed version of the Videos to Convert to Articles page that actually loads in the visual editor
5. AND/OR a fixed visual editor that can actually load the Videos to Convert to Articles page

Let’s get it done.

I do not want this to be a forever project that never turns into something real, or stagnates in mediocrity due to lack of attention, leadership, or progress. We have to balance doing things properly with not expecting everything to be perfect.

The launch day will require all hands on deck to come up with what needs to be handled on the fly as an influx of users come in, and we will have to be ready to edit policies & deal with all sorts of random crap that needs to be updated on the fly. There is no way for us to anticipate every problem until launch!