how much of what we believe about moderation actually comes from wiki threads
Genuine question, and the title is the question: how much of what we believe about moderation actually comes from wiki threads.
Checked the sponsor disclosure because I assumed it would be vague. It was extremely specific and slightly boring.
Complained about a rule without proposing anything and was politely pointed at this page. Fair.
Edited a wiki page for the first time and nothing bad happened, which is apparently the point.
Screenshot none of this. Read the whole thread, including the parts where I am told I am wrong.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Funding and links, in full, because the question deserves a straight answer.
Sponsor units are labelled as sponsored. Each vendor source page carries one outbound link to that supplier’s own storefront, marked nofollow and sponsored, so you can read their account of themselves against the record on the page. Nothing is received for those links, no supplier pays for a directory position, and no rating is for sale.
No referral or affiliate links are permitted anywhere on the site, from anybody, including in the pricing threads where the temptation is highest. That rule is the reason those threads are worth reading, and it is enforced without exception. The full version of all of this is on the about page and it is deliberately boring.
Yes — a proposal with concrete wording gets discussed. A complaint about the rules in general does not.
Submissions older than a year are archived: readable, linkable, and closed to new comments. That keeps a three-year-old thread from being reopened with a reply nobody will see in context.
modmail first, always, and the thread second
modmail first, always, and the thread second
Agreed — concrete wording or it is not a proposal.
Small fix — archiving happens at a year, not at six months. It is in the published policy.
The evidence standard on the vendor boards requires a document, a date or a named service behind any claim about a supplier. It is what makes those threads worth reading years later.
Moderation of individual cases happens in modmail rather than in threads, because a public discussion of one person’s removal is worse for that person than a private one.
That is a complaint rather than a proposal. Bring wording and it can actually be discussed.
Disagree with loosening that. The evidence rule is why a supplier report here means something.
What would the new rule do to the vendor evidence standard?