User:Monsieur Crow/Words to Watch proposal: Difference between revisions
(spooky scary skeleton for a new page) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
==Words that may introduce bias== | ==Words that may introduce bias== | ||
===Puffery=== | ===Puffery=== | ||
Puffery refers to the use of words that promote or disparage a subject without summarising verifiable information. Terms that promote puffery should ideally be replaced with facts or attribution to demonstrate a point. For instance, simply stating {{SSB4|Cloud}} has a horrible recovery is unacceptable; stating Cloud's recovery is poor as a result of several "blind spots" in [[Climhazzard]] and its poor distance would be acceptable. | |||
===Unsupported attributions=== | ===Unsupported attributions=== | ||
So-called "weasel words" are words and phrases that attempt to claim that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in reality, such claims may only have been given ambiguously. A common example would be using vague attribution, such as using phases like "some say" or "it is widely thought". For example, saying the [[Official Custom Moveset Project]] was criticised by some smashers is unacceptable; saying that it was criticised by tournament organizers, however, lends more credibility. Ideally, a specific individual or source should be given for attribution. | |||
===Editorializing=== | ===Editorializing=== | ||
The use of certain adverbs should be avoided, as such terms can give inadvertently undue focus to a point, such as "notably", "unusually", and "interestingly". Phrases can also introduce such inadvertent focus, such as "it should be noted" or "of particular note", and they should be avoided if possible. SmashWiki should also not attempt to presume too much about the reader's perspective, and editors should avoid the use of words such as "obviously", "naturally", "clearly", and "of course". As NPoV also states SmashWiki should describe disputes, but not engage in them; as a result, SmashWiki should not take a view as to whether an event was "fortunate" or "thankful". | |||
A particularly subtle case of editorialising can occur through the use of words that link two sentences together, such as "but", "despite", "however" and "though"; the linkage of two sentences may imply a relationship where none exists. | |||
==Expressions that lack precision== | ==Expressions that lack precision== | ||
Revision as of 18:43, June 30, 2017
|
Feel free to contribute to this page as you would a mainspace page. |
SmashWiki is not censored, but certain expressions and phrases should still be avoided, as they may introduce bias to an article or a viewpoint, or cause information to become unclear or inarticulate. This addendum to our manual of style is intended to help users to avoid inadvertently introducing bias to a page through improper word choice.
Note that words that are not featured on this page may still be problematic in certain contexts; similarly, some words on this page may still be usable if the context calls for it.
Words that may introduce bias
Puffery
Puffery refers to the use of words that promote or disparage a subject without summarising verifiable information. Terms that promote puffery should ideally be replaced with facts or attribution to demonstrate a point. For instance, simply stating Cloud has a horrible recovery is unacceptable; stating Cloud's recovery is poor as a result of several "blind spots" in Climhazzard and its poor distance would be acceptable.
Unsupported attributions
So-called "weasel words" are words and phrases that attempt to claim that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in reality, such claims may only have been given ambiguously. A common example would be using vague attribution, such as using phases like "some say" or "it is widely thought". For example, saying the Official Custom Moveset Project was criticised by some smashers is unacceptable; saying that it was criticised by tournament organizers, however, lends more credibility. Ideally, a specific individual or source should be given for attribution.
Editorializing
The use of certain adverbs should be avoided, as such terms can give inadvertently undue focus to a point, such as "notably", "unusually", and "interestingly". Phrases can also introduce such inadvertent focus, such as "it should be noted" or "of particular note", and they should be avoided if possible. SmashWiki should also not attempt to presume too much about the reader's perspective, and editors should avoid the use of words such as "obviously", "naturally", "clearly", and "of course". As NPoV also states SmashWiki should describe disputes, but not engage in them; as a result, SmashWiki should not take a view as to whether an event was "fortunate" or "thankful".
A particularly subtle case of editorialising can occur through the use of words that link two sentences together, such as "but", "despite", "however" and "though"; the linkage of two sentences may imply a relationship where none exists.
Expressions that lack precision
Euphemisms
Clichés and idioms
Relative time references
Unspecified places or events
Neologisms and new compounds
Vulgarities, obscenities, and profanities
SmashWiki is not censored, and as a result, a number of words considered rude, offensive, or crude may be used in the mainspace, such as in the terms Rapetent, Motherfucking Leaker or Death by Rape. Outside of direct contexts, however, offensive language should be avoided when possible, unless removing such vulgarities causes information to become less relevant or accurate.
