Wiki Content Policies

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 — Neutral Point of View (NPOV), Verifiability, and No Original Research — and highlights both similarities and differences in our approach.

The key distinction between Wikipedia's approach and our own is that 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.

Neutral Point Of View

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 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 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.

Attention should be paid to Wikipedia’s 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

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.

It is crucial to avoid ‘purity testing’ potential sources. Has Linus Tech Tips occasionally presented misleading information? Yes. Are they always straightforward and controversy-free? No. However, they generally produce content that is broadly factually correct and represents a significant viewpoint on various tech and consumer issues, and as such are an acceptable source to cite.

Generally, as long as a source has reasonable notability and a reputation that is not actively non-credible (such as UserBenchmark’s reputation for widespread bias, dubious results, and general non-credibility), it is acceptable to cite them unless it can be shown that the specific information being cited is incorrect.

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.

• 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.

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’.

Secondary sources, which may illustrate public opinion or reaction to an event or entity (e.g., ‘reactions to this statement were generally negative, with major commentators such as X reacting ‘this whole situation appears to be a case of Y’) or provide additional useful analysis (e.g., X drew public comparisons between the practices of company Y and those of company Z) can be used. Generally, secondary sources should be notable and competent figures. It would give undue weight to use the commentary of a random anonymous account when major commentators have made statements on an issue. Writers should avoid overloading articles with quotations from secondary sources and aim to use non-inflammatory quotations where available and appropriate.

No Original Research

Wikipedia’s No Original Research rule will be fully adopted, with the sole exception that opinions within Theme articles do not require citations. Facts within Theme articles, and all opinionated or factual statements within Tier 2 and 3 articles, must adhere to the No Original Research rule, meaning they must be supported by citations to external sources that meet the verifiability criteria specified above.

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.