Powerbase:Editorial Policy

Return to SpinProfiles:Help Contents

SpinProfiles is a Wiki, a collection of articles configured so that any registered user can create or edit an article. Edits by registered users are logged under their user name. To register as a user, email management AT spinprofiles.org.

SpinProfiles is a collection of data on spin, propaganda, think tanks, front groups, PR consultancies, 'fake persuaders', industry-friendly experts and corporate lobby groups. We want to report spin, not be accused of spinning ourselves. Therefore the following guidelines should be followed.

Libel

Everyone who contributes to SpinProfiles is required to read and understand SpinProfiles Libel Policy. If you have not already done so - Read it now!

What is reputable?

The evaluation of reputable sources is not always easy. We think that the accuracy of information in published sources is not governed by how 'reputable' the source is or is regarded as. This is in part because many of the sources regarded as reputable in the mainstream are, in fact, often a key part of the problem of spin and propaganda, which this database has been set up to expose. So we have a policy which foregrounds accuracy over reputation of sources. So our policy is different from that of Wikipedia, for example: their policy is worth quoting as we think it highlights part of the problem faced in this area.

This is what Wikipedia says about Reputable publications:

Reputable publications include peer-reviewed journals, books published by a known academic publishing house or university press, and divisions of a general publisher which have a good reputation for scholarly publications.

We agree with this, though it is obviously the case that such sources are not beyond critique. For non academic sources, Wikipedia notes:

it is impossible to pin down a clear definition of "reputable." In general, most of us have a good intuition about the meaning of the word. A magazine or press release self-published by a very extreme political or religious group would often not be regarded as "reputable." For example, Wikipedia would not rely only on an article in the Socialist Workers' Party's newspaper The Militant to publish a statement claiming that President Bush hates children. However, if that same claim was in The New York Times, then Wikipedia could refer to the article (and to the sources quoted in the article). The political newspaper could, however, be used as a source of information about the party itself.

We think that this is a very revealing passage, which helps clarify the difference between reputation, evaluation and accuracy. Any statement that President Bush hates children is an evaluative statement. It should, therefore, be based on evidence. The evaluation cannnot be short circuited by relying on a source, 'reputable' or not. It has to be based on evidence which might be gleaned - in principle - from either the New York Times or a radical newspaper or website. But a significant part of what this site is about is providing a critique of mainstream (and sometimes 'radical') sources. How can we criticise the mainstream media and still use them as sources?

Wikipedia goes on:

Ask yourself some questions when you are evaluating a publication. Is it openly partisan? Does it have a large or very small readership? Is it a vanity publisher? Is it run principally by a single person, or does it have a large, permanent staff? Does it seem to have any system of peer review, or do you get the feeling that it shoots from the hip? If you heard that the publication you are about to use as a source was considering publishing a very negative article about you, would you (a) be terrified because you suspect they are irresponsible and do not fact-check; or (b) feel somewhat reassured because the publication employs several layers of editing staff, fact-checkers, lawyers, an editor-in-chief, and a publisher, and will usually correct its mistakes? If it is (a), do not use it as a source. If it is (b), it is what Wikipedia calls "reputable."

When dispute arises regarding whether a publication is reputable, you can attempt to get more editors involved and work toward a consensus. There is no clear definition, but don't ignore your intuition.

More details on sources can be found on A Guide to Sourcing

Groups/Individuals posting articles on themselves

We don't encourage individuals and groups to create SpinProfiles articles about themselves or people or organizations with which they are affiliated. We 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.

Security

Because only registered users can contribute, SpinProfiles uses a light system of security.

These measures are as follows:

1. Some registered SpinProfiles users have been given the status of "sysop," which enables them to block contributions from registered users and to delete pages where appropriate.
2. Sysops can also "protect" individual articles. A "protected" article can only be edited by other sysops.
3. Any user, sysop or not, can "rollback" recent editorial changes made to an article by any other user. To "rollback" an article means to return that article to the state it was in before the previous user began editing.

Security measures should be used sparingly. Blocking should be used: a) on the first offence if commercial spam is added to one or more articles; b) where the changes are of an editorial nature, only when a user has shown a pattern of inappropriate edits such as major unexplained edits. A single inappropriate edit may be simply a mistake or a learning experiment by a new user.

Most blocks should initially be for a period of 24 hours and stepped up if vandalism is repeated. (A block on an IP address has the potential to freeze out other innocent contributors from the same IP "catchment"). Longer IP blocks may be imposed when dealing with especially egregious cases of repeated abuse.

If spam or repeated vandalism is originating from a registered user a stricter response can be adopted without adversely affecting other contributors. Where a registered user is adding spam or has repeatedly vandalised a page they can be blocked for an indefinite period by setting the block period to "indefinite" (all lower case).

To ensure that there is a fair process in place the procedure for ensuring editorial standards is as follows.

1. On the first occasion that content deemed inappropriate (in terms of potential libel, tone, accuracy etc), the managing editor or a sysop will discuss with the user what the problem is in an attempt to resolve it.
2. If that does not work or on a second occasion there is an issue, then the managing editor or sysop will issue a warning that particular specified edits are outside the editorial guidelines of Spinprofiles.
3. On a third or further occasion, the user will be banned for a period or indefinitely.
4. The user will have the right to appeal a banning decision to the Sysop, but decisions of the Sysop are final.

Role of SpinProfiles staff

SpinProfiles is a project of Spinwatch (in partnership with Lobbywatch, Corporate Watch and others), and Spinwatch sets the policies under which SpinProfiles operates. Spinwatch editors and volunteers also contribute content to Spinprofiles and are responsible for maintaining and configuring the software on which it runs. However, Spinwatch editors do not review every article or contribution, and articles on Spinprofiles do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Spinwatch or its directors.

Resolution of disputes

SpinProfiles should not be used as a repository for content that is defamatory, obscene, or that violates copyright laws. SpinProfiles users who encounter inappropriate content are encouraged to correct it themselves. They may also notify SpinProfiles staff of problems by contacting the SpinProfiles editor by amail to management AT spinprofiles.org.

Complaints and legal threats relating to the content of a SpinProfiles page should be dealt with as a matter of high priority. Any complaints hinting at legal action are to be communicated to the Spinprofiles editors by emailing sysop AT spinprofiles.org and management AT spinprofiles.org as soon as possible. If you believe that your copyrighted material has been infringed, you may contact the editors at sysop AT spinprofiles.org and management AT spinprofiles.org.

Commentary about a SpinProfiles article should not be included in the article itself, but each article has a corresponding "talk" page where comments may be posted (accessed via the "discussion" tab at the top of the page). In cases where someone adds commentary about an article to the article itself, it should not be simply deleted. Instead, move it to the talk page.

Editorial disagreements between SpinProfiles users should focus on facts and evidence pertaining to the article(s) being edited. SpinProfiles talk pages should not be used to vent or to insult other users. Contributors who persist in a pattern of abusive or insulting behavior toward other contributors may be blocked. Contributors who repeatedly infringe copyrighted material will have their accounts terminated.

See SpinProfiles policy guides to Etiquette and Dispute Resolution for further details. Further details in relation to Copyright policy, Complaints and Legal threats are also available.

Users who violate SpinProfiles policies

Users who violate any SpinProfiles policies or guidelines should expect their contributions to be edited or deleted - either by other users, sysops or CMD staff - and security measures to be taken against them. This applies to policies and guidelines found on, but not limited to, the following pages:

• Contributing Guidelines
• SpinProfiles policies
• Referencing
• Tone
• Copyrights

Inaccuracies & complaints

It is the intention of this site to provide factually correct information that is referenced to a high standard. Whilst we undertake our own fact checking and encourage all our users to do so, it is not possible to check all the original references used on this site.

If anyone believes that information on Spinprofiles is not factually correct or contains significant errors, we will try and correct them as soon as possible. Please email with as much detail and supporting material to management AT spinprofiles.org