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
From Consumer Action Taskforce
Jump to navigationJump to search
m i cant spell or write |
replied to kostas |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
: As a first thought I would say that avoiding the use of "profile" or "status" to decribe the stance of a company in regards to 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) | : As a first thought I would say that avoiding the use of "profile" or "status" to decribe the stance of a company in regards to 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) | ||
:: The reason why it violates the neutrality principle is less to do with how heavily opinionated the particular statements are, and more to do with the fact that they are being said in the wiki's voice at all. Instead of someone reading them and seeing 'the wiki says that x person says that steam is like this', they read it and see 'the wiki says that this is true'. Again I'm not 100% opposed to the wiki having editorial stances, and this might be a demonstration of how it can be done well, but there needs to be a clear separation between 'the wiki's reporting on facts and opinions from other people' and 'the wiki having an opinion on a topic', which is why I think that if it is permitted, it should be in some kind of special box or something. [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 00:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 00:28, 18 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 stance of a company in regards to 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)
- The reason why it violates the neutrality principle is less to do with how heavily opinionated the particular statements are, and more to do with the fact that they are being said in the wiki's voice at all. Instead of someone reading them and seeing 'the wiki says that x person says that steam is like this', they read it and see 'the wiki says that this is true'. Again I'm not 100% opposed to the wiki having editorial stances, and this might be a demonstration of how it can be done well, but there needs to be a clear separation between 'the wiki's reporting on facts and opinions from other people' and 'the wiki having an opinion on a topic', which is why I think that if it is permitted, it should be in some kind of special box or something. Keith (talk) 00:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
