Editorial guidelines

Use of tone

Detailed below are the two main 'tones' that are acceptable within the Wiki, as well as examples of the article types in which they should be used.

Factual, non-accusatory, and legally safe

• Factual statements in articles should only be made where they directly reference a source. Direct inferences from these statements may be made, in a non-accusatory manner.
• Source commentators often bring opinions, rants, and diatribes that add commentary & entertainment value; that is for their content. This is a repository of factual information. To be taken seriously, it must avoid coming off as the expression of an individual's personality.
• Articles should not include language directly condemning specific companies or named individuals. Instead, this should be achieved by citing others – ‘it has been claimed that this practice amounts to x or y’, and by use of qualifiers ‘This shares characteristics with x’.

• No attribution of malice to the subjects of criticism, unless such malice has been established in a legal context or by a legitimate regulatory body. Even then, it should always be stated indirectly: 'The U.S. Supreme Court found that Company X...', rather than 'Company X did...'. Be sure to link the appropriate case or opinion using the Wiki's <ref> and <references /> tags.
• This will be the appropriate tone for all non-theme articles.

'Nice Louis'

• The way Louis would speak in a Senate hearing. Passionate advocacy, but avoiding strong language, or causing unnecessary offense. Where argumentation is used, it is clear and direct.
• No direct attacks on named individuals or companies, but likely to be strong condemnation of specific practices, while citing the companies that do them. Malice may be attributed to bad and proven offenders, in a formal and calm manner.
• This is the appropriate tone for explanatory theme articles which cover larger issues relating to consumer protection and is not specifically related to individual practices by individual companies, except where these are used as examples.
• This tone is not appropriate for the more factual accounts expected of individual Incidents, and should instead be reserved for Theme articles.

Minor revisions may be made to these guidelines from time to time, but they are expected to remain consistent with the Mission Statement, and the broad rules of thumb established here.

The 'Granny rule' (or, the 'Senator rule')

The Wiki aims to be a widely accessible source where the general consumer can learn about the issues that affect them, and where relevant regulatory or political figures can be directed for a full explanation of the issues they have sight over. In general, a good rule of thumb to use when writing for the Wiki will be 'would I be comfortable showing this article to my grandmother?'

This has two main implications:

• Avoid using inflammatory language. This includes quotations: swear words should be censored, and where a supporting quotation is required for an article, writers should try to choose ones that convey the relevant information without appearing combative.
• Avoid unnecessary technical detail. This is not a tech Wiki, and as far as possible, writers should avoid diving into technological details. Where technical explanations are required to properly articulate the events of an Incident (for example, describing the events of the Honey scandal would require an explanation of site tracking via links, and Cookies), care should be taken to ensure that they are as accessible as possible. The use of jargon should be avoided, and technical terms should be defined in each article where they appear.

Examples of unacceptable content includes:

• Strong and unfiltered language
• Deep dives into the technical functionality of a product at the center of an Incident
• Unsourced 'facts', and excessive use of disreputable sources
• The tone and language Louis might use in a rant video
• Direct insults to specific individuals or companies, or direct attribution of malice to said individuals or companies
• This Wiki is not for "Pissed off Louis" - that's for YouTube, and has no place here

We will be especially vigilant against potentially harmful content, and take strong action against users who:

• Advocate for direct action against malicious companies or individuals within articles themselves
• Add false or misleading information to the Wiki, particularly that which may be damaging to companies or individuals
• Invent sources or quotes
• Write articles which feature a blasé attitude toward the expression of extremely strong, or even violent, sentiment towards named individuals and companies

Appropriate use of sources

[This section is to be an adaptation of Anonymity & Vagueness in Citations, but that adaptation will happen tomorrow]

Editorial Q&As

Is it acceptable to, in an article detailing the faults with a particular product, direct users towards alternative products that do not share these issues?

This Wiki is not a place for product recommendations, and cannot be turned into a place for sneaky guerilla advertising, or the promotion of contributors' pet projects.

The only acceptable reason to include a product in an article that is not focused on said product, is to directly demonstrate that an anti-consumer practice is unnecessary. This exception is made in order to combat the way that unscrupulous companies will attempt to muddy the water, by claiming that their practices are necessary for the product to be viable. We do not want a company to be able to defend a practice as "necessary" on the basis of made-up justifications of economic viability or legal necessity, and as such it is acceptable to mention a competing product or business, ONLY for the purpose of comparing & contrasting how another business in the same space is able to provide the product or service without screwing the customer.

• If a company says "the only way we can offer a $500 OLED television is by selling your personal data": it would be acceptable to point to a company that does not include such terms in their EULA/TOS, and which provides the same product at the same price point.
• If a company says "we cannot make xyz repair information available due to laws regarding consumer safety": it is acceptable to point to another company in that same industry, who provide such repair information, without legal consequence.

I'm interested in writing an article about an issue which only really affects my (non-US) country... Is that ok to include in the Wiki?

Absolutely! Provided it meets all the criteria, and is written in English, there are no restrictions on the location in which an incident has occurred, or a company is based.