Metopedia policy governs the purpose, scope, editorial model, governance, inclusion standards, dispute handling, and preservation rules of Metopedia. It exists to keep the project focused on evidence-based inquiry, source preservation, transparent reasoning, and accountable treatment of disputed claims.

Metopedia is a research encyclopedia and knowledge-reconstruction project. It is not an open forum, social network, general encyclopedia, personal blog host, news-feed mirror, harassment platform, or dumping ground for unsupported allegations. Pages must serve the project’s research purpose and must be structured so that readers can distinguish evidence, interpretation, inference, uncertainty, and conclusion.

Core principles

Principle	Meaning
Evidence before assertion	Claims must be supported by sources, records, data, method, or clearly identified analysis.
Method before conclusion	Technical, historical, mathematical, linguistic, forensic, and investigative claims must explain how the conclusion was reached.
Preservation before deletion	Errors, disputes, weak claims, and incomplete pages are normally corrected, marked, archived, or reviewed before deletion is considered.
Accountability before anonymity	Editing requires an accountable account structure. Anonymous editing is not part of the ordinary editorial model.
Scope before expansion	Pages must serve Metopedia’s research and knowledge-reconstruction mission.
Transparency before suppression	Removals, redactions, protections, and major administrative actions require clear reasons when publication of the reason is lawful and safe.
Correction before consensus	Disputes are resolved through evidence, source quality, method, and reasoning, not popularity, rank, pressure, or vote count.
Uncertainty before false certainty	A page may reach a conclusion, but it must not hide unresolved questions, missing records, conflicting evidence, or limits of method.

Project scope

Metopedia covers subjects that require structured research, source comparison, reconstruction, preservation, or analytical separation. Suitable subjects include:

disputed historical claims;
institutional narratives and official records;
source conflicts and archival inconsistencies;
cognitive psychology frameworks and cognitive-bias analysis;
forensic, photographic, linguistic, mathematical, and technical methods;
evidence records, investigations, timelines, and fact-checks;
public claims requiring source reconstruction;
removed, suppressed, inaccessible, unstable, or poorly preserved research records;
conceptual frameworks developed through documented method;
open-source investigations where evidence can be preserved and inspected.

A page does not need to agree with mainstream consensus to be included. It does need a defined scope, identifiable evidence, responsible wording, and a structure that allows correction.

Metopedia does not host pages whose primary function is:

personal promotion without research value;
unsupported accusation;
harassment, retaliation, or ridicule;
routine news aggregation;
ordinary entertainment summary;
ideological campaigning;
commercial marketing;
medical, legal, financial, or emergency advice;
random speculation with no evidence record;
duplicate material that adds no new source, method, organization, or analysis.

Page types

Metopedia pages may use different standards depending on the function of the page.

Page type	Function	Minimum standard
Article	Explains a subject, concept, event, method, person, or framework.	Clear lead, scope, sources, evidence separation, and neutral analytical tone.
Fact check	Examines a specific claim.	Representative claim, verdict, evidence table, counterarguments, conclusion, and references.
Investigation	Preserves and analyzes an evidence record.	Evidence index, search method, source status, unresolved questions, and limits.
Evidence record	Stores source material, correspondence, screenshots, logs, files, transcripts, or metadata.	Provenance, date, source, preservation status, and use limits.
Technical method	Explains a process, algorithm, code method, forensic technique, or reproducible procedure.	Inputs, procedure, assumptions, outputs, failure conditions, and reproducibility notes.
Policy or standards page	Governs site operation or editorial practice.	Clear rule statements, definitions, process, scope, and cross-links.
Help page	Guides contributors, readers, or administrators.	Practical instructions, examples, and links to relevant standards.

A page may combine types, but the dominant function must be clear. A fact check should not become an unfocused essay. An investigation should not become a verdict without enough evidence. A policy page should not become a list of future plans.

Inclusion criteria

A subject is suitable for Metopedia when it satisfies at least one of the following criteria:

It has a documented source conflict, evidentiary dispute, or unresolved public claim.
It is tied to a broader research framework, investigation, fact check, or method page.
It preserves records that may otherwise disappear, degrade, or become difficult to inspect.
It explains a concept used repeatedly across Metopedia pages.
It provides reproducible technical, mathematical, linguistic, forensic, or archival method.
It clarifies a disputed narrative, institution, source, event, or claim.
It provides a necessary standard, policy, template, category, glossary, or help function.

A subject is normally unsuitable when it has no evidence base, no research purpose, no connection to Metopedia’s scope, or no practical value beyond ordinary summary.

Evidence handling

Metopedia separates source material from interpretation.

Level	Description	Treatment
Primary evidence	Original documents, direct records, images, data, logs, transcripts, source code, official filings, archived pages, or firsthand material.	Preserved, cited, contextualized, and distinguished from interpretation.
Secondary analysis	Scholarly, journalistic, technical, legal, historical, or expert interpretation of evidence.	Used to compare, test, contextualize, or challenge claims.
Inference	A conclusion drawn from evidence but not directly stated by a source.	Marked as inference and tied to the evidence that supports it.
Speculation	A possible explanation that has not yet been sufficiently tested.	Clearly labeled, limited, and excluded from final claims unless later supported.
Conclusion	A finding reached after evidence review and counterargument handling.	Worded according to evidence strength and updated when the evidence changes.

Sources must not be used as decoration. A citation must support the statement it is attached to. Weak sources may be useful as examples of public claims, but they cannot carry strong factual conclusions.

Claim strength

Claims must match the available evidence.

Wording	Use
Confirmed	Direct evidence establishes the fact with high reliability.
Supported	Multiple reliable sources or strong evidence support the claim, while some uncertainty may remain.
Likely	The evidence favors the claim, but alternative explanations remain possible.
Possible	The claim has some evidence or logical basis, but is not established.
Alleged	A person, source, complaint, filing, or group makes the claim; the page is not endorsing it.
Unverified	The claim has not been checked or cannot be independently confirmed from available material.
Unsupported	The claim lacks adequate evidence.
False or contradicted	Stronger evidence directly conflicts with the claim.

A page may examine a weak or unsupported claim. It must not present the claim as established.

Original research and analysis

Metopedia allows original analysis when the method, evidence, assumptions, and limits are made visible. Original analysis is not a license to bypass sourcing. It is a requirement to explain reasoning.

Original research is acceptable when it:

identifies the evidence being analyzed;
explains the method used;
separates observation from inference;
includes counterarguments or failure conditions;
avoids presenting speculation as fact;
allows another reader to inspect or reproduce the reasoning.

Original research is unacceptable when it relies on private certainty, hidden evidence, fabricated sources, selective quotation, or untestable claims.

Governance

Metopedia uses accountable administration. Administrators maintain site operation, enforce policy, protect pages, manage imports, handle removals, respond to abuse, review legal or privacy concerns, and preserve the integrity of records.

Policy authority follows this order:

applicable law and hosting obligations;
site security and user safety;
core Metopedia policy;
specific standards pages;
page-level editorial judgment;
ordinary contributor discussion.

Policy changes must preserve the reason for the change in the edit summary or surrounding documentation. Major policy changes require clear wording and should not be hidden inside unrelated edits.

Approved editing model

Metopedia is not built on unlimited anonymous editing. Editing access may be restricted to approved users, administrators, or trusted contributors. This model protects source integrity, reduces spam, and allows accountability for changes to disputed or sensitive subjects.

Approved contributors are expected to:

cite sources accurately;
preserve page history;
avoid personal attacks;
explain significant edits;
distinguish evidence from interpretation;
follow article and source standards;
disclose relevant conflicts where needed to evaluate a contribution;
accept correction when stronger evidence is provided.

Disputes

Disputes are resolved through sources, method, policy, and evidence quality. The goal is not to win an argument but to improve the page.

A dispute should be handled in this order:

Identify the exact sentence, citation, image, claim, or edit at issue.
State whether the issue concerns accuracy, sourcing, tone, scope, privacy, copyright, conduct, or method.
Compare the disputed material against the strongest available sources.
Separate factual disagreement from interpretation disagreement.
Add missing context, counterevidence, or uncertainty where needed.
Escalate to administrator review when ordinary correction fails.

Disputes involving living people, private information, legal threats, harassment, copyright, security, or repeated disruption may bypass ordinary discussion and move directly to administrator review.

Appeals and review

Users may request review of blocks, restrictions, removals, page protections, or other administrative actions by contacting Metopedia through the contact process. A useful appeal identifies the action, explains the disputed point, provides evidence, and states the requested correction.

Metopedia may decline appeals that repeat already answered claims, conceal relevant facts, attack individuals, refuse to address policy, or attempt to relitigate abuse after a clear record has been established.

Administrative actions may be upheld, narrowed, reversed, modified, or replaced with a less restrictive action when the record supports a change.

Deletion, redaction, and preservation

Metopedia favors preservation, but not at the expense of law, safety, privacy, security, source integrity, or basic site function.

Pages or revisions may be deleted, hidden, suppressed, redacted, protected, or restricted when they contain:

private personal information;
credible threats or harassment;
malware, exploit material, or unsafe files;
copyright infringement;
spam or commercial abuse;
fabricated sources presented as real;
severe vandalism;
doxxing or stalking material;
legally sensitive material requiring restriction;
duplicate or abandoned material with no research value.

Where possible, the reason for removal should remain visible through logs, edit summaries, talk-page notes, or administrator documentation. Reasons may be narrowed or withheld when publication would expose private information, security details, legal risk, or additional harm.

International and cross-jurisdictional issues

Metopedia may discuss records, institutions, sources, and claims from many countries. Pages involving international subjects must distinguish local law, foreign law, cultural context, translation issues, and source accessibility.

Contributors must not assume that a legal term, public-record rule, copyright rule, privacy standard, or institutional practice means the same thing in every jurisdiction. When a topic crosses jurisdictions, the page should identify the relevant country, agency, date, legal system, source language, and translation status.

Living persons and private individuals

Pages involving living people require extra care. Claims about living people must be sourced, relevant, proportionate, and worded with precision. Private individuals should not be named unless the name is necessary to the research purpose and supported by a legitimate source basis.

Metopedia distinguishes public accountability from unnecessary exposure. A person’s role in a public record, institution, publication, legal filing, or official action may be relevant. Their unrelated private life usually is not.

Conflicts of interest

A conflict of interest exists when a contributor’s personal, financial, professional, ideological, legal, institutional, or relational interest may affect how a page is written. A conflict does not automatically bar contribution, but it may require disclosure or review.

Contributors with a conflict should avoid using Metopedia to launder self-serving claims, attack rivals, conceal unfavorable evidence, or promote a preferred narrative without source balance.

Enforcement

Metopedia may enforce policy through warnings, reverts, page protection, upload restriction, edit restriction, account blocks, deletion, revision hiding, suppression, or other administrative controls.

Enforcement is based on conduct, risk, source integrity, and site function. It is not based on whether a contributor holds an unpopular view. Strong disagreement with consensus is allowed when framed through evidence and method. Abuse, fabrication, harassment, spam, and reckless accusation are not allowed.

Relationship to other policies

This page is the general policy layer. When a more specific policy applies, the specific policy controls.

Area	Governing page
Article structure and claim wording	Metopedia:Article standards
Source hierarchy and citation practice	Metopedia:Source standards
Research procedure and method transparency	Metopedia:Research method
User conduct and dispute behavior	Metopedia:Code of Conduct
Copyright and licensing	Metopedia:Copyrights
Privacy and data handling	Metopedia:Privacy policy
General content limits	Metopedia:General disclaimer
Contact and requests	Metopedia:Contact

Summary

Metopedia permits difficult subjects, disputed claims, institutional criticism, original analysis, and evidence reconstruction. It does not permit unsupported certainty, abusive conduct, fabricated sourcing, or hidden reasoning.

The core rule is simple: preserve the record, show the evidence, explain the method, identify the limits, and correct the page when stronger information appears.