Editing Consumerium:Dispute

A '''Consumerium dispute''' may be of several kinds, often lumped together into the generic "[[neutrality dispute]]" which is an inexact way of saying that the [[factionally defined]] terms don't lead to any [[consensual point of view]].

All articles in [[Research Wiki]] should be nominally [[Consumerium:neutral point of view]], a descriptive meaning "any statement which is disputed requires [[attribution]]."  Facts that are not '''dispute'''d in practice need not be attributed - until they ''are'' disputed.  Then what happens depends on:
*who disputes it, and if their [[faction]] is under-represented in debate or not
*what evidence they offer, hopefully in [[TIPAESA]] form
*the [[adversarial process]] of [[Consumerium:dispute resolution]].

A [[Consumerium:identity dispute]] and [[Consumerium:factual dispute]] are very common cases that can be resolved with reference to trusted sources.  Almost everything else is disguised [[politics as usual]] dispute.

Statements of the form "X is often asserted to be true, but is not true" might be in the main article if they are very prevalent beliefs, but usually will be moved to another space devoted to [[Critical point of view]], e.g. [[talk page]].  This is because so many things are not true "about the topic" that it would be an abuse to list selectively what is not, e.g. "the [[Lowest Troll]] of Consumerium does not wear a dress in public and does not beat up squirrels". 

Some believe that disputes are themselves productive and useful.  There may be a need to question some facts randomly or systematically from a [[New Troll point of view]] just to make sure that no sources are overtrusted and no [[common sense]] is accidentally being placed in articles.  NPOV alone is not enough of a prescription, because of the [[systemic bias]] of editors and contributors.  One form of [[vandalism]] is to harass contributors by disputing things that are actually not in dispute except for [[ad hominem]] reasons, then censor it when they give up "defending" it.  Various forms of [[sysop vandalism]] in particular are often conducted in exactly this way.

Anyone may '''dispute''' the [[Consumerium buying signal]] and this is helpful if it is done before [[lawsuit]]s start.  The [[Publish Wiki]] may not contain all the attribution information, but, it will be available by [[drill down]] on all [[Consumerium Services]], especially the buying signal that the consumer sees.  Controversial or less trusted sources or disputed facts that appear in [[Research Wiki]] may not get to [[Publish Wiki]] - it should be up to some [[answer recommendation]] system - ''and definitely not decided by [[sysopism]] or the use of bogus terms like "[[Consumerium:non-neutral point of view|non-neutral]]"

'''See also:'''
*[[POVs]] - for a complete listing of different POV schemes proposed or in use elsewhere