Project:Content policy

In accordance with the project's goal, the following policy lays out what types of content should be included and how content should be presented on the project.

Language

For the purposes of upholding project policies all content written or displayed on this project, anywhere on this project, must be in English unless it is a quotation in prose.

Neutrality

All content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing information included on the wiki fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias.

Achieving neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing relevant sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias. This project aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. The aim is to inform, not influence. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean the exclusion of certain points of view. It means including all points of view. Observe the following principles to achieve the level of neutrality that is appropriate.

• Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in this project's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action" but may state that "genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil."
• Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.
• Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by sources should normally be directly stated in the project's voice.
• Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize. When editorial bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed. The only bias that should be evident is the bias attributed to the source.
• Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view. For example, to state that "According to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis" would be to give apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field.

Preserving community informational security

Access to information varies based on both the community's genre and on the position a person has in it. A competitive community may restrict access to tactics, future activities, or training to only those in the relevant teams. A community that hosts servers may restrict access to disciplinary documents because it has personally identifiable information, may make the community look poorly as it'll be taken out of context, or it is restricted to maintain trust in the discretion of handling sensitive matters.

No information regarding a community may be added anywhere on this project that is not available to someone with general membership in the relevant community. "General membership" is defined as access to information that does not require appointment to a named position via any method. Access to information that does require appointment is considered to be outside the scope of "general membership". If such information is discovered or reported, administrators may perform revision deletion.

Conversely, community leaders may not petition Online Communipedia to remove information that they do not wish to be displayed. If the information is in line with our content policies and relevant laws, unless there is a consensus amongst editors to remove it, it may remain. Community leaders are similarly not able to circumvent this policy by retroactively concealing information that was once available to the general member base; if it was ever available to the member base, it may remain, unless it is clear that it was done in error.

Verifiability

Content which is generally going to be uncontroversial (i.e is not likely to be challenged by readers, not that it isn't polarizing) can be provided without citation, though editors are encouraged to provide citations whenever they can.

The following situations, if they apply, do require the presence of a citation to a source that is reliable for the statement(s) it is supporting in order to maintain inclusion. Otherwise, editors may remove it, and it may not be restored until it is cited. If the information cannot be cited, it is inappropriate for inclusion on this project.

1. Content that describes actions or behavior that characterizes a specific person in a negative light.
2. Content that to any reasonable person would be controversial.
3. Extraordinary claims regarding a community's accomplishments or that of it's participants.
4. Any claim made within an article that is challenged by an autoconfirmed editor.
   1. If an editor wishes to invoke this, it must be done on the talk page of the article with an explicit statement challenging the claim and the claim provided verbatim.
5. Any content which serves to show that a community meets the inclusion criteria.

Content disputes and consensus

A time may come when 2 or more editors engage in discourse over the content of an article on this project. Editors are to be aware that outside of project policies there exists no governing body (with a single exception, described below) that arbitrates content. This includes administrators. All disagreements over content, whether it be how content is displayed or what content gets to remain, must be resolved by consensus.

A dispute is considered to begin de facto once an editor A introduces a change to an article and an editor B undoes it, either via the undo button or by editing the page manually. After that, the content should not be reintroduced without discussion (unless a project policy dictates otherwise). A dispute may also begin by an editor bringing up something on the article talk page and another editor expresses disagreement. Any editor, or administrator, may assist editors engaged in a dispute by providing their own opinion or - so long as they did not participate themselves - present their evaluation as to what the result of a discussion should be.

Due to the small nature of the project, the site operator may at their sole and complete discretion exercise executive powers to arbitrate content (i.e they may make a binding ruling on what should happen in a dispute, regardless of consensus). The enacted result and rationale for using this power will be communicated clearly. If and when the project grows to a reasonable size, the hope is for this power to be phased out.