Project:Content policy

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

Language

For the purposes of upholding project policies all content written or displayed on this project, anywhere on this project, must be in English.

Neutrality

All content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing information included on the wiki fairly and without 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. 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.
• 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 specific teams. A roleplay community may restrict access to conversations and objectives that are only meant for members of specific organizations, such as the police or criminal enterprises.

Online Communipedia finds the dissemination of information that is intended to remain private unethical. To this end, no information from a community may be added anywhere on this project unless it is accessible to an individual with general membership in the relevant community. If such information is discovered or reported, administrators may perform revision deletion.

Conversely, community leaders may not petition Online Communipedia to remove information simply because they do not wish the information to be displayed. 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 the revealing of that information was in error and it was hastily rectified.

General Membership

"General membership" is defined based on how one participates in the community.

1. If participation is done simply by participating on a service (e.g public Minecraft server), then general membership would be whatever a member of a forum (or any other communications platform) that is newly registered could see.
2. If participation requires a manual review of some kind (e.g application process), then general membership would be what a member newly accepted into the community could see.

Any information that requires being appointed to a named position (e.g "moderator", "manager", "police officer") can safely be assumed to be in violation of this policy.

This will not always be a simple determination. Administrators are encouraged to be liberal in the enforcement of this policy if it is borderline.

Verifiability

Facts must have a source that sufficiently prove it's accuracy. The singular exception would be content which to any reasonable person would be equivalently as obvious as the sky being blue. For example, it is unnecessary to provide sourcing to support a community's name - that tends to be predominantly displayed on the relevant community's communications platforms, websites, and the works.

Synthesis

It is often necessary to synthesize information, or take information from multiple sources and draw a conclusion from it in the project's voice, in order to describe a community. This is most common when writing about a community's rank structure, since it is rarely spelled out. Sourcing will probably not exist that outright proves synthesis, which is acceptable; but sourcing must still be provided for the facts being used within the synthesis.

Synthesis must never be performed when writing about a community's history or when writing about particular events that happened within it. Such content must remain strictly neutral, only present what sourcing states, and only present the facts in the voice of whatever the source is.

Media and verifiability

It is acceptable and often necessary for media (e.g screenshots, video, PDFs) to be used as sourcing. The age of online community's having forums has generally passed and been replaced with Discord servers and their equivalent. However, media is ripe for abuse with editing tools.

Any media uploaded with the intent of being used as a source must be unmodified and be tagged with {{Media auth}}.

The only type of modification permitted is cropping, such as to only get a single message in a conversation, so as to avoid editors having to capture an entire window or screen for all of their media. Any other modification (e.g censoring text, names, images; changing text from what was there originally; cutting off a portion of a message) is prohibited.

Any media used as a source needs to be tagged with {{Media auth|auth=n}} so that readers can be warned to have healthy skepticism. All files with auth= set to n are placed in the maintenance category Category:Media needing authentication, which can be patrolled by administrators. Instructions for administrators on how to authenticate media is available on the template's documentation, but if a piece of media passes, the parameter can flip to y to indicate to readers that a human has reviewed the file and found it to be appropriate.

Only adminisrators can review files in this manner. Other editors are prohibited to change auth= to y under any circumstances.

Challenging authenticity

Any autoconfirmed editor may, at any time, challenge the authenticity of a source. Once challenged, an administrator that was not the previous authenticator will perform the authentication again to ensure the accuracy of the source. If an administrator is the challenger, they may immediately perform the authentication themselves.

If authentication is successful, it will be reported on the relevant talk page for the source, and it may not be challenged again for 6 months. If the administrator determines beyond a reasonable doubt that the source was altered in any way, it must be deleted immediately. If authentication is wholly impossible (e.g website that is the source of a screenshot has deprecated without archival), the administrator shall be empowered to make a ruling on the matter within their best judgement.

Administrators are encouraged to lean toward deletion if there are suspicious circumstances involving it's upload.

Private evidence

Cases may occur where a community's leadership contacts editors of Online Communipedia, or the inverse, in order to confirm basic facts or confirm the accuracy of synthesis. This information may not be used on this project unless an administrator is the reciever of such communication. In such a case, if the administrator is certain that they are speaking with an authority figure and that they are being truthful, they may use the relevant template on the article's talk page. Once invoked, the content described may not be adjusted without the relevant administrator's input, unless there is a consensus among editors to do otherwise.

Private evidence may not be used to violate any other content policy, nor may it be used if it is directly contradictory to valid sourcing. In such a case the authority figure should be directed to correct the contradiction.

Copyright and trademark considerations

Media uploaded as a source is still bound by our policy on the usage of copyrighted material.

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.