The Following are some general guidelines that should be followed when editing articles:
Our aim is to present the companies listed in in a fair light. Obviously defamatory statements are not allowed.
In law, defamation is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image. Slander refers to a malicious, false, and defamatory spoken statement or report, while libel refers to any other form of communication such as written words or images. Most jurisdictions allow legal actions, civil and/or criminal, to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against groundless criticism. Related to defamation is public disclosure of private facts which arises where one person reveals information which is not of public concern, and the release of which would offend a reasonable person.
As far as possible try to write about companies in a fair and just way. If something you write could be considered controversial, please provide evidence for your statements by sourcing it from reliable sources.
Use good judgement when writing articles, try to keep them comprehensive yet compact.
Keep Things Neat and Tidy
Our Catalog is meant to be easy to access and use. Always remember that its main audience is first and foremost, Event Organizers. Always Try to format the information in such a way that makes it easy for them to find what they are looking for very quickly and gives them a comprehensive amount of information.
Please follow our template for new articles. By all means add to it to make it more comprehensive and informational but try to keep the flow of the wiki.
Perfection Is Not Required
It is wonderful when someone adds a complete, well-written, final draft to the Security Catalog. This should always be encouraged.
However, one of the great advantages of the Wiki system is that incomplete or poorly written first drafts of articles can evolve into polished, presentable masterpieces through the process of collaborative editing. This gives our approach an advantage over other ways of producing similar end-products. Hence, the submission of rough drafts should also be encouraged as much as possible.
One person can start an article with, perhaps, an overview or a few random facts. Another person can add a minority opinion. Someone else can round off the article with additional perspectives. Yet another can play up an angle that has been neglected, or reword the earlier opinions to a more neutral point of view. Another person might have facts and figures or a graphic to include, and yet another might fix the spelling and grammatical errors that have crept in throughout these multiple edits.
As all this material is added, anyone may contribute to turn it into a more cohesive whole. Then, more text may be added, and it may also be rewritten.
During this process, the article might look like a first draft—or worse, a random collection of notes and factoids. Rather than being horrified by this ugliness, we should rejoice in its potential, and have faith that the editing process will turn it into brilliant prose. Of course, we do not have to like it; we may occasionally criticize substandard work, in addition to simply correcting it. It is most important that it is corrected, if it can be corrected. For text that is beyond hope we will remove the offending section to the corresponding talk page, or, in cases in which the article obviously has no redeeming merit whatsoever, delete it outright. The decision to take the latter action should not be made without first consulting an Administrator, however.
Whilst editing, endeavour to preservse information through the following:
- Correct the inaccuracy while keeping the content
- Move text within an article or to another article (existing or new)
- Add more of what you think is important to make an article more balanced
Of course, Not everything deserves to be kept, some examples are:
- duplication or redundancy
- patent nonsense
- copyright violations
- unsourced controversial claims about living persons