Our editorial standard is practical: make a useful claim, support it with suitable evidence, explain the context that changes its meaning, and leave readers a clear route to challenge the result.
What deserves publication
We prioritize questions readers genuinely ask, subjects that benefit from explanation, and material that can be organized into a useful reference. A topic’s popularity alone is not enough. We may decline or remove material that is dangerously misleading, unlawfully copied, needlessly invasive, impossible to support, or designed mainly to manipulate search traffic.
Our core standards
- Accuracy. Material facts should be supportable and represented in proportion to the evidence.
- Clarity. Definitions, dates, units, geography, and scope should be understandable without expert guesswork.
- Attribution. Distinctive facts, quotations, research findings, and external media should be credited appropriately.
- Independence. Advertising, traffic goals, and outside interests must not purchase editorial conclusions.
- Proportionality. Headlines and summaries should not be more certain, alarming, or sweeping than the article itself.
- Accountability. Substantive errors should be corrected visibly and reader reports should be reviewable.
Sources and evidence
The best source depends on the claim. Official records, standards bodies, original research, public datasets, and direct documentation are preferred when they answer the question. Reputable secondary reporting and expert synthesis can provide context. Aggregators, promotional pages, anonymous claims, and unsupported social posts are weak foundations and should not be used as if they were primary evidence.
Not every sentence requires a link, but every consequential factual claim should be traceable to a reasonable basis. More detail is available in Sources & Verification.
Uncertainty and disagreement
Some questions have no single settled answer. Research can be incomplete; statistics can depend on definitions; historical interpretations can differ; regulations can vary by place; and fast-moving technology can change between review and publication. In those cases we should describe the boundary of what is known, identify material disagreement, and avoid manufacturing certainty.
High-stakes subjects
Health, legal, financial, safety, and emergency information requires additional caution. Articles should emphasize general education, favor authoritative current sources, and make clear when individualized professional guidance is necessary. We do not publish personalized diagnosis, legal representation, investment instructions, or emergency response.
AI-assisted work
Automated tools may help organize or transform material, but they do not count as evidence and do not receive authorship. Their output can contain fabricated citations, outdated claims, hidden bias, or confident mistakes. Any assisted work must be judged by the same editorial requirements as other work, with human-directed responsibility for what is published.
Images, headlines, and presentation
Visuals should clarify or honestly illustrate the subject. Captions should not imply that a representative image documents a specific event. Headlines, thumbnails, and metadata should describe the article rather than create a misleading promise. Advertising must remain visually distinguishable from editorial content.
Updates, corrections, and removal
Routine improvements may include clearer wording, formatting, link repair, or refreshed context. A change that materially alters the meaning of a published claim should be handled under the Corrections Policy. Removal is reserved for situations such as legal obligation, serious privacy or safety risk, unlawful material, or content that cannot be repaired responsibly.
Disagreement alone does not prove an error, but every specific, evidence-based report deserves assessment. Include the page URL, the disputed passage, and the strongest source you have.