SourceWatch:Ground rules
From SourceWatch
help |
|
Start here:
More help: Research and referencing:
|
Related: SourceWatch:Purpose, SourceWatch:Contributing
The SourceWatch community has some policies and guidelines that are generally accepted and considered important, or even essential, by the project's founders and its participants. These help us to work towards our goal. It is important to note that the particular implementation of at least some of these policies is still in a state of evolution, as SourceWatch grows and develops.
Generally accepted policies
Be fair
Propagandists engage in selective presentation of evidence. Articles written for SourceWatch should strive for a higher standard, by summarizing all evidence and points of view on a subject accurately and thoroughly. SourceWatch’s Congresspedia component will inevitably attract detractors and supporters of the public officials covered in its articles, but if those articles become partisan or biased then they will no longer have value for the general public. Likewise, content contributed to Congresspedia should be related to the public statements and official acts of a public official and not related to their election or the merits of their candidacy or their challengers. Users who wish to contribute to Congresspedia as a resource for the general public should strive to be factual and fair; users wishing only to vandalize the site will be blocked.
Don't infringe copyrights.
SourceWatch is a free encyclopedia licenced under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. Submitting work without the copyright holder's permission threatens our objective to build a truly free encyclopedia that anyone can redistribute, and could lead to legal liability for the project. Contributors who repeatedly infringe copyrighted material will have their accounts terminated. If you believe that your own copyrighted material has been infringed, you may contact the Center for Media and Democracy's registered copyright agent: John Stauber, Executive Director, Center for Media and Democracy, 520 University Avenue, Suite 227, Madison, WI 53703. Telephone (608) 260-9713. Email: copyright AT prwatch.org. See SourceWatch copyrights for more information.
SourceWatch is an encyclopedia.
The site should primarily be used for developing the encyclopedia. In particular, the facility to upload files should only be used for files used in articles, and discussions on talk pages should be directed at improving articles.
Respect other contributors.
SourceWatch contributors may come from many different countries and cultures, and have widely different views. By treating others with respect we are able to cooperate effectively in building an encyclopedia. For some guidelines, see Etiquette.
Follow conventions.
By following these conventions we are able to produce a more consistent and usable encyclopedia:
- Editing policy
- standard forms for page names: SourceWatch:Naming conventions
- dealing with different things with the same name: SourceWatch:Disambiguation
Groups/individuals posting articles on themselves
We don't encourage individuals and groups to create SW articles about themselves or people or organizations with which they are affiliated, and we encourage people to register under their own names when editing articles already on SW about themselves or their groups. We also encourage people who edit articles about themselves or people or organizations with which they are affiliated to exercise restraint and to defer to other contributors with regard to editing choices that are matters of interpretation rather than fact. When disputes arise over interpretation, such individuals should try to address them with comments on the talk page rather than the article space itself. Users who are overly aggressive in deleting relevant facts from articles about themselves or others may be blocked from contributing to or editing the site.
How are these policies enforced?
You are a SourceWatch editor. SourceWatch lacks a top-down mechanism whereby all day-to-day progress on the encyclopedia is monitored and approved. Instead, active participants monitor the recent changes page and make copyedits and corrections to the content, format and policy problems they see. So the participants are both writers and editors. The paid editors of SourceWatch and Congresspedia do review much of what is added and offer additional guidance and contributions, but without the participation of a community of particpants, a wiki resource like SourceWatch cannot work.
In extreme and unusual cases, CMD staff will step in to ban a user who proves to be unusually disruptive. See the SourceWatch/Congresspedia editorial policy for the policies followed by staff and sysops in editing user contributions and enforcing policies.
Personnel
SourceWatch was designed by Center for Media and Democracy research director Sheldon Rampton. However, much of the actual content will come from volunteer scholars, journalists, students, activists, and generally-knowledgeable people from around the world who happen to show up at the website and feel inspired to donate some of their knowledge.
The paid editor of SourceWatch is Bob Burton and the paid editor of Congresspedia is Conor Kenny. They and other Center for Media and Democracy staff and other volunteers who have a proven track record of positive contributions act as informal sysops, monitoring recent changes with an eye to preventing and correcting vandalism, offensive contributions and deliberate disinformation.
How are these policies formulated?
SourceWatch policy is taken, by and large, from the policies of Wikipedia, which have been formulated by habit and consensus. Hence, the statements on this page and pages adjoining it are intended for the most part to be descriptive of existing community norms that have developed over time. Issues are still formulated and debated on talk pages and elsewhere. If you wish to contribute to developing or modifying SourceWatch policies, contact SourceWatch editor Bob Burton at bob AT sourcewatch.org or Congresspedia editor Conor Kenny at Conor AT sourcewatch.org.
Specific guidelines to consider
In addition to the generally accepted policies listed above, additional policies and guidelines can be found here:
- Congresspedia article guidelines
- SourceWatch article guidelines
- Contributing guidelines
- SourceWatch/Congresspedia editorial policies
- Referencing
- Copyrights
Also, because the content of many of the help pages in SourceWatch have been adapted from Wikipedia, further guidelines and ideas for the development of SourceWatch guidelines can be found at Wikipedia Policies and guidelines.
These are the ground rules for contributing to SourceWatch or its projects, including Congresspedia. These rules are designed to help the SourceWatch community collaboratively build a high-quality encyclopedia. If your edits violate these rules, expect that they will be deleted. There are also standard practices you can expect from SourceWatch's staff editors and citizen sysops. If you'd like to get involved in helping administrate SourceWatch, you can become a sysop.
Only documented facts should be added to SourceWatch
- Every factual assertion should have a source. Avoid using sources that are overly unreliable, unverifiable or unestablished. (See the referencing guidelines for more.)
- The opinions of knowledgeable experts are often relevant and illuminating. However, any characterization, opinion or evaluation should be documented as the opinion of a named source, not a fact. Wikifying the source's name or affiliation to their SourceWatch profile is encouraged to give readers more background on the source.
- Additions should be fair and not misleading. Language should be sober and accurate. (More on language and rhetoric on SourceWatch.)
Be fair and accurate
Other information sources strive to be "objective" or "balanced." The term that SourceWatch uses to describe a similar goal is "fair and accurate." We realize that everyone has biases and blind spots (even ourselves), but we can nevertheless make a good faith effort to see beyond our own assumptions.
- Fair means that we try to present all relevant information about a topic, not just the facts that happen to support our personal opinions and leanings.
- Accurate means that we strive to eliminate errors of fact from SourceWatch. If, for example, someone was born on September 1, 1960, SourceWatch should not say that they were born on November 12, 1972. Some facts may be in dispute (and the question of how to interpret known facts is often an even greater challenge), but we should try to be precise and careful both in determining the facts before we add them to an article. We should also be diligent and happy to correct errors whenever they are brought to our attention.
SourceWatch is free – as in speech and as in beer
Free as in speech - SourceWatch is free for anyone to participate in editing as long as they follow these rules. Its articles are not meant to be authoritative or have a "balance" – its biases inevitably reflect those of its staff and citizen editors – but as long as all the information is fair and sourced, it will serve as a useful resource for readers. The staff editors, however, will endeavor to add, organize and contextualize content in accordance with the article guidelines.
- You are even free to edit articles about yourself or people or organizations you are connected to. Just make sure to disclose your relationship and yield to the judgments of others (more).
Free as in beer - SourceWatch is free for anyone to read or use. Any ads on SourceWatch are moderated by outside brokers (and not controlled by the Center for Media and Democracy) and do not cover the costs of running the site – the Center for Media and Democracy is a non-profit organization and will never make money off the project or charge for access. (More about the Center for Media and Democracy.) Further, under the GNU Free Documentation license, you can use SourceWatch content, for free, to produce other commercial and non-commercial works, as long as those works are also free for others to use and SourceWatch is acknowledged as the source. In order to stay this way, content added to SourceWatch needs to be available through "fair use" or under other "copy-left" licenses.
Be constructive, not destructive
- SourceWatch is a collaborative project of researchers, journalists and "regular" citizens. Make sure your edits add to the informative value of an article; i.e. do not remove content that is accurate, sourced and relevant, even if you don't like it. It is fine to contextualize or reorganize content or move it onto sub-articles or related articles, but the reorganization should in accordance with the article guidelines and should not be used to deemphasize content you don't like.
- SourceWatch does not have a neutral point of view. Your additions to SourceWatch do not have to represent the facts behind all sides of a debate. This bias of content will hopefully be corrected by the additions of other editors, but you are free to only add content to articles that supports your own point of view.
Keep it relevant
SourceWatch is an encyclopedia of public affairs that documents the people, issues and groups shaping the public agenda both locally and globally. It is meant to help citizens worldwide discover the connections, money and agendas behind pundits and organizations; learn more about important policy and political issues; and hold public officials accountable by documenting their actions and statements. Edits to SourceWatch should reflect this. For more on what is and is not relevant to be on SourceWatch, read the full purpose statement.
Play nice
SourceWatch is a collaborative project of researchers, journalists and "regular" citizens. Certain practices allow us to work together better:
- If editing existing content (as opposed to adding new content), leave a note on the article's discussion page explaining your reasons. It is also helpful to leave a message on the talk page of the user whose content you are adding alerting them to the note on the article discussion page. (More on using discussion pages.)
- Don't engage in name calling or profanity when talking to other users and try to assume good faith in everyone.
- Don't be disingenuous or refuse to engage in discussions when having a disagreement with another user.
- When all else fails, appeal to one of the managing editors for assistance.
