Help:Flagging Incomplete or Inaccurate Pages/Sections
Why users should review articles and cases
AquaPedia strives to be a reliable source for information about water conflicts or other complex and contentious water management challenges. AquaPedia is an open resource, it is free to access and anyone can contribute.
Users are encouraged to review cases when they suspect that a case could be improved. Reviewing a case helps other users more quickly evaluate the quality and completeness of a case.
Two Sides of the Open Information Coin
- By allowing anyone to contribute, different perspectives and interpretations of events within a case can be represented, allowing all voices to be heard in the representation of a case.
- By allowing anyone to contribute, information that is not factual may be contributed. A contribution may be very one-sided, or be considered highly contentious.
- An individual can contribute a limited amount of information based upon the time and interest he or she has in the project.
- Information in an article or case can become outdated or may be very incomplete
- Contributors don't have to be professional writers or scholars and contribute on an as-desired basis.
- Contributions can be poorly written or need significant editing for grammar, spelling, and clarity.
- Form-style input allows individuals who aren't familiar with wikitext and HTML to contribute to a case
- Contributors may need assistance with formatting images or embedded video and links.
How to review articles and cases
From the "Edit" view of a case (link above Case Title, on the right hand side of the window), you can select the "Case Review" tab.
Check boxes that relate to how the case needs to be improved. Visit the case's discussion page to add comments about why you flagged the page and what should be done to fix the issue.
Linked Sections in cases have their own "page review" tabs in their respective editing views. These can be flagged for improvements to content or formatting in the same way as the case review.