Help:Content Guidelines

The new site already has lots of useful information, especially in providing talking points for replying to objections to animal rights and veganism. But a wiki takes an encyclopedic approach, which calls for articles on a wide range of related topics. For the JFA Wiki, this means topics that are germane to animal rights and vegan advocacy. To be clear, we do not advocate for animal welfare measures, but instead for an end to the exploitation of non-human animals.

In addition to presenting information directly pertinent to animal rights, we also present the environmental, nutritional, and human social justice aspects of veganism in hopes of providing additional incentive for people to adopt a vegan lifestyle. Be we acknowledge that the case for animal rights and veganism does not depend on these considerations beyond showing that a vegan diet is adequate for good health.

How We Differ

As an example of how we differ from Wikipedia and other wikis, consider our article on chickens compared to Wikipedia's. Wikipedia provides general information that is well worth the read. But instead of trying to duplicate the information on Wikipedia, our article provides information on the aspects of chickens useful for advocacy. This includes summarized information on chicken sentience and cognition, the way we harm chickens, humane labels and certifications, nutritional information on chicken meat and eggs, and environmental harms associated with chicken production. As the site grows, it's likely that future articles will provide more detailed information in each of these areas.

Also, the JFA Wiki is not:

• A home for opinion pieces, although this may be allowed later in a special section of the site.
• A news website There are some good news websites available.
• A recipe website. Some amazing recipe sites are already available.

Tone

Use an informal academic tone in your writing. This is a bit vague, but you can review existing content on this site to get an idea of what this means.

Avoid:

• Hyperbole and exaggeration.
• Scare quotes. Scare quotes convey cynicism, which, unlike skepticism, is a liability.
• Overly emotional language.
• Ultimatums. “A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.” — Ben Franklin
• Criticism of those in the movement who advocate strategies and tactics with which we disagree. Such criticism is sometimes justified, but it seems that plenty of energy is already being spent on such efforts.
• Questioning a person’s or organization’s motives, especially those in the movement. Questioning motives requires a higher standard of evidence than questioning their position on a topic.

The following are prohibited:

• Ad hominem attacks.
• Racist, sexist, classist, homophobic, ageist, ableist, or demeaning language.
• Hate speech.
• Anything with an assumption, implicit or explicit, that animals are here for human exploitation.

Point of View

We have adopted an objective point of view, similar to Wikipedia's neutral point of view, as explained below. An exception is that we are not neutral in our belief that it is morally wrong to unnecessarily harm animals. And the evidence that unnecessary harms are occurring on a grand scale cannot be plausibly denied.

Achieving the objective point of view means considering a variety of reliable sources and then presenting the information as fairly as possible without bias. Observe the following principles (adapted from Wikipedia) to achieve objectivity:

• Avoid stating opinions as facts. Opinions should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc.
• Avoid stating validly contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.
• Avoid stating facts as opinions. Passages should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested.
• Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize.
• Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view.

Style Guide

The Chicago Manual of Style (17th Edition) is JFA's main style guide. The style decisions unique to JFA are addressed in our own Style Guide which takes first priority.

Research and Sources

Seek to use the highest quality sources available. Primary sources are strongly preferred for factual data. For interpretations of highly technical research or other data, secondary sources from objective experts who are qualified to evaluate primary sources can be employed. One research study rarely provides positive proof of anything, so objective in some cases expert testimony can be more meaningful, not to mention more convincing.

Sources should be credible to the target audience. For credibility with non-vegans, validated sources, to whatever extent possible and where appropriate, should not originate within the animal rights and vegan communities. Relying on experts in the animal rights or veganism movement is discouraged for establishing the veracity of positions widely doubted or not understood by those not in the movement.

For example, citing an organization named Animal Rights League, particularly for factual information, is not convincing to those who do not believe in animal rights, no matter how factual the information presented. These organizations include:

• Any organization that is primarily an animal rights organization, an animal welfare organization, or a vegan organization.
• Any organization whose name indicates it is an animal rights organization, an animal welfare organization, or a vegan organization.

Sources friendly to opposing views can often be used to lend credence to a point. For example: “Even the National Dairy Association acknowledges . . .” The USDA, with its abundance of information (and as a friend of animal agriculture), is often a good source.

If a quality source for a factual statement cannot be found, the statement should not be used. No exceptions. Plagiarism is not acceptable.

Do not plagiarize. Using someone’s words without quotation marks is plagiarism even if you cite the source.

Public Doman

Understand that you agree to irrevocably release anything you write for this site to the public domain. Every time you edit and save changes, you are provided with a notice to this effect.

You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see JFA Wiki:Copyrights for details). Do not submit copyrighted work without permission.