Metopedia articles must be structured, sourced, method-aware, and clear about the difference between evidence, analysis, inference, and conclusion.

Metopedia permits articles that challenge mainstream claims, institutional narratives, and accepted explanations. The requirement is not agreement with consensus. The requirement is responsible construction.

Basic article requirements

A Metopedia article should include a clear opening statement, defined subject, defined scope, cited sources, evidence separated from interpretation, method explanation where analysis is technical, relevant counterarguments where substantive, unresolved questions where evidence is incomplete, categories, and useful internal links.

An article should not be published as a pile of claims. It should show the reader what is being examined, why it matters, what evidence exists, what method is being used, and what conclusion is or is not supported.

Opening paragraph

The opening paragraph should define the subject without exaggeration. A useful format is: [Article title] is a Metopedia [article type] concerning [subject], [central issue], and [scope]. The first paragraph should not begin with a conclusion unless the page is a fact-check with a narrow verdict.

Page notices

Pages should use short notices when the subject is disputed, investigative, technical, or limited in scope. A notice may identify a page as a fact-check, investigative evidence record, method page, source record, or review page. The notice should define what the page does and does not establish.

Claims and wording

Evidence strength	Acceptable wording
Directly documented	The record states; the page displays; the filing says.
Strongly supported	The evidence supports; the available record indicates.
Inferred from pattern	The pattern suggests; this supports an inference that.
Unresolved	The record does not establish; this remains unresolved.
Unsupported	Do not present as article text except to identify the unsupported claim as such.

Avoid language that converts suspicion into proof. Do not state motive unless there is evidence of motive. Do not state coordination unless there is evidence of coordination. Do not state fraud unless the article defines the standard and shows the necessary evidence.

Disputed claims

Disputed claims are allowed when framed responsibly. A disputed claim should include the exact claim being examined, who made the claim where relevant, the evidence supporting the claim, the evidence against the claim, the method used to assess the claim, a conclusion or unresolved status, and limits on what the article establishes.

A disputed claim should not be presented as proven merely because it is plausible, emotionally compelling, institutionally inconvenient, or repeated by multiple sources.

Counterarguments

Counterarguments should be included when they are relevant, sourced, and substantive. A counterargument is not required merely because someone disagrees. A page should not include weak objections for artificial balance.

Include counterarguments when they directly address the central claim, use identifiable sources, challenge the method, data, or interpretation, represent an institutional or technical response, or prevent a reader from mistaking an unresolved issue for a settled one.

Article conclusions

Metopedia articles may reach conclusions. A conclusion is acceptable when it follows from the evidence shown, uses controlled language, does not exceed the method, distinguishes known facts from inferences, and identifies unresolved questions.

A conclusion is not acceptable when it relies on source count, ridicule, institutional authority, popularity, or unsupported suspicion.

Fact-check pages

Fact-check pages should be narrow. A fact-check should identify the claim being checked, the strongest accurate version of the claim, the misleading or unsupported version of the claim, the evidence, the verdict, and what the verdict does not decide.

Recommended verdict labels include Supported, Mostly supported, Partly supported, Overstated, Misleading, Unsupported, False, Unresolved, and Not established.

Investigative evidence pages

Investigative evidence pages may document records, patterns, removals, correspondence, archived pages, search results, and open questions. They should separate documented artifact, search finding, pattern inference, hypothesis, and established conclusion.

Investigative pages should not convert a pattern into proof of motive unless the motive is documented.

Technical and forensic pages

Technical pages must explain method. They should include materials examined, input data, procedure, assumptions, variables, limitations, reproducibility notes, examples, error risks, and interpretation rules. Where possible, technical pages should include enough detail for another researcher to repeat the method.

Biographical material

Biographical material requires heightened care. Pages about living persons must avoid unsourced allegations, private information, harassment, insinuation, irrelevant personal details, claims about mental state without strong sourcing and clear relevance, and guilt by association.

Biographical pages should focus on public work, published claims, public records, documented actions, and subject relevance.

Original research

Metopedia allows original research when it is labeled, methodologically explained, and supported by inspectable evidence. Original research should provide the research question, evidence base, method, result, uncertainty, comparison to existing literature when useful, and reproducibility notes. Original research should not be disguised as established consensus.

Archiving requirement

Important sources should be archived whenever legally and technically possible. A source is important when it supports a central claim, may disappear, is disputed, is hosted by an institution being examined, is a government or platform record, or is part of a takedown or removal issue.

Categories and navigation

Articles should include relevant categories and internal links. Categories should be specific enough to help navigation but not so specific that every article creates a new isolated category.

Maintenance notices

Editors may add maintenance notices for missing citations, weak sourcing, disputed claims, excessive tone, unclear scope, original research needing method detail, archive links needed, counterarguments needed, or cleanup required. Maintenance notices should identify the problem clearly.

Section	Purpose
Hatnote or page notice	Defines page type and limits.
Opening summary	Identifies the subject and central question.
Infobox or summary table	Gives reader a fast orientation.
Executive summary	Summarizes the article's findings.
Background	Explains necessary context.
Evidence record	Lists sources, artifacts, documents, data, or observations.
Analysis	Explains the method and reasoning.
Counterarguments or alternative explanations	Presents substantive opposing interpretations where relevant.
Findings	States what the evidence supports.
Limits	States what the evidence does not establish.
Open questions	Lists unresolved issues.
References	Gives citations.
See also	Links related pages.

Article standards