Blog:Proposed reception policy

This is a blog on what I am proposing to be the reception policy on Qualitipedia. This explains how we will figure out which wiki a type of media goes on.

Before I start...
I would like to note a couple of things:
 * 1) As you will be able to see, this policy states that critics' opinions should be considered. I am aware that there have been arguments that critics should not be trusted. While I definitely think there should be exceptions (in fact, there already are exceptions which I will mention in this blog), there is no reason for us to officially say "critics suck, stop considering their opinions", not all critics are necessarily bad, and they do at least deserve a chance to share their opinion. Or at least, that is what it should be like for now.
 * 2) Usually, there are three types of people to consider while making a page: critics, audiences and fans. However, I think that there should be only two, critics and audiences, because fans are either critics or a part of the audience. Yes, they might usually have different opinions to other critics and people from the audience, but that doesn't mean they're not critics or not part of the audience.

Media rules
Note: This does not apply to websites, as they do not have as much reception as media and therefore have different rules. See the website rules here.

Normal situations
If a piece of media... Please say so if I missed anything out.
 * 1) Is panned by
 * 2) both sides (critics and audiences), then it goes on the negative wiki as a bad piece of media.
 * 3) one side but is just generally negatively-received by the other side, it goes on the negative wiki as a bad piece of media.
 * 4) Receives negative reception from both sides, then it goes on the negative wiki as a bad piece of media.
 * 5) Receives mixed-to-negative reception from
 * 6) one side but negative reception from the other, it goes on the negative wiki as an average piece of media.
 * 7) both sides, it goes on the negative wiki as an average piece of media.
 * 8) Receives mixed reception from
 * 9) one side but mixed-to-negative from the other side, it goes on the negative wiki as an average piece of media. This is because one of the sides shows a more negative view, which means that the reception is overall closer to negative than positive.
 * 10) both sides, gets panned/receives negative reception from one side and gets critically acclaimed/receives positive reception from another side or has any other type of reception that results in an overall mixed reception, it goes on either both wikis or neither wiki. This is because in this case, it is not closer to negative or positive - there is absolutely no fair way to tell which wiki the media should go on.
 * 11) Receives mixed-to-positive reception from
 * 12) one side but mixed reception from the other side, it goes on the positive wiki as a decent piece of media. This is because one of the sides shows a more positive view, which means that the reception is overall closer to positive than negative.
 * 13) both sides, it goes on the positive wiki as a decent piece of media.
 * 14) Receives positive reception from
 * 15) one side but mixed-to-positive reception from the other side, it goes on the positive wiki as a decent piece of media.
 * 16) both sides, it goes on the positive wiki as a good piece of media.
 * 17) Receives critical acclaim from
 * 18) one side but just normally positive reception from the other side, it goes on the positive wiki as a good piece of media.
 * 19) both sides, it goes on the positive wiki as a good piece of media.

Unexpected situations
If a piece of media...
 * 1) Is panned by one side but receives
 * 2) mixed-to-negative reception from the other side, it goes on the negative wiki as a bad piece of media.
 * 3) mixed reception from the other side, it goes on the negative wiki as a bad piece of media.
 * 4) mixed-to-positive reception from the other side, it goes on the negative wiki as an average piece of media.
 * 5) positive reception from the other side, it goes on the negative wiki as an average piece of media.
 * 6) Receives negative reception from one side but receives
 * 7) mixed-to-positive reception from the other side, it goes on the negative wiki as an average piece of media.
 * 8) critical acclaim from the other side, it goes on the positive wiki as a decent piece of media.
 * 9) Mixed reception from one side but receives
 * 10) positive reception from the other side, it goes on the positive wiki as a decent piece of media.
 * 11) critical acclaim from the other side, it goes on the positive wiki as a decent piece of media.
 * 12) Mixed-to-positive reception from one side but receives critical acclaim from the other side, it goes on the positive wiki as a good piece of media.

Website rules
Website reception rules are different to media reception rules. This is because there aren't "critics" for websites (as far as I know at least), nor is there a well-known site out there where you can rate websites. As a result, a good way to find reception for websites is searching up "[insert website name here] criticism" when looking for bad reviews and "why [insert website name here] is good" when looking for good reviews on YouTube. However, there are also other sites where you can find reception - Reddit and DeviantArt are good examples of sites that have rants on them. Overall, it is not easy to find reception of websites, but these are some possible ways to find reception of certain websites.

Pages that deliberately ignore certain parts of reception
There are some pages on Qualitipedia wikis that deliberately ignore certain parts of reception, however no page has been made an official exception yet. This may be updated if that changes or turns out to be not true.

People that should be ignored
Any website or YouTuber listed as "unreliable" on the Source Reliability-O-meter should not be used to add up reception, and should not be featured in the video section. However, their review can still be written about in the reception section.

In conclusion...
I am going to make an RfC which will discuss whether or not this should become the official reception rules for Qualitipedia. I am aware that I am not an administrator, but I do not need to be to propose the creation of this policy. Please do not comment here, and comment on the RfC instead.