Purpose

Metopedia is a research encyclopedia. Its standards exist to make articles inspectable, sourced, reproducible, distinguishable from opinion, and resistant to distortion. The site permits disputed claims, institutional criticism, historical reconstruction, technical analysis, linguistic analysis, mathematical analysis, forensic review, and original research when the method is declared and the evidence is separated from inference.

The central rule is simple:

Claims must be tied to evidence, evidence must be inspectable, interpretation must be labeled, and uncertainty must be preserved.

This page gives contributors a practical starting point. The linked policy pages control the details. The baseline is consistent across the site: preserve sources, show method, separate claim from inference, avoid personal attacks, and disclose uncertainty.

Standards map

Standard area	Main page	Purpose
Article structure	Metopedia:Article standards	Explains how articles should define scope, separate evidence from analysis, handle disputed claims, include counterarguments, and state limits.
Source quality	Metopedia:Source standards	Defines the source hierarchy, citation expectations, archive standards, source conflicts, unsupported claims, and fabricated-source handling.
Research process	Metopedia:Research method	Describes the step-by-step method for defining a question, gathering evidence, preserving sources, testing alternatives, and publishing findings.
Conduct	Metopedia:Code of Conduct	Sets behavioral expectations: challenge claims, not people; prohibit harassment, doxxing, threats, stalking, vandalism, and malicious disruption.
General policy	Metopedia:Policy	Defines the site’s governing principles, scope, page types, claim handling, dispute handling, deletion, and transparency expectations.
Privacy	Metopedia:Privacy policy	Explains public contributions, account data, logs, cookies, backups, third-party processors, privacy requests, and retention rules.
Copyright	Metopedia:Copyrights	Explains contributor licensing, quotations, uploads, public-domain material, fair use, copyright complaints, and reuse.
Terms	Metopedia:Terms of use	Defines user obligations, acceptable use, prohibited activity, account restrictions, licensing, and policy integration.
Disclaimer	Metopedia:General disclaimer	Clarifies that Metopedia content is educational and research-oriented, not professional advice or endorsement.
Cookies	Cookie statement	Explains cookies and similar technologies used for login, preferences, security, editing, and site operation.
Contact	Metopedia:Contact	Explains how to submit policy, privacy, copyright, correction, abuse, and technical requests.

Core principles

Metopedia standards are built around five principles.

Evidence before assertion

A claim should not appear as fact merely because it is rhetorically strong, emotionally satisfying, institutionally accepted, politically useful, or socially popular. The article should show what supports the claim and how strong that support is.

Preservation before deletion

Research pages should preserve sources, methods, revisions, disputes, and corrections where possible. Deletion may be necessary for spam, copyright violations, privacy violations, doxxing, threats, vandalism, unlawful content, or serious policy breaches, but ordinary disagreement should be handled through correction and documentation rather than removal.

Method before conclusion

A conclusion should follow from a stated method. If the method is original, experimental, inferential, forensic, mathematical, linguistic, or interpretive, the article should say so. A reader should be able to identify the evidence, reconstruct the reasoning, and see where uncertainty remains.

Transparency before authority

Metopedia does not treat authority as a substitute for evidence. Institutional sources, peer-reviewed papers, official records, expert statements, journalism, testimony, forums, and primary documents each have different strengths and limits. Strong sources matter, but their claims still need context and inspection.

Challenge claims, not people

Metopedia permits sharp criticism of claims, institutions, evidence, methods, and public narratives. It prohibits harassment, threats, doxxing, stalking, targeted abuse, impersonation, malicious disruption, and attacks on private individuals unrelated to evidence.

Article standards summary

Articles should follow the full Metopedia:Article standards, but the minimum structure should include:

a clear opening statement;
a defined scope;
a short explanation of the issue;
the evidence being used;
citations to inspectable sources;
separation of evidence, analysis, inference, and conclusion;
counterarguments or alternative explanations where relevant;
unresolved questions;
careful wording based on evidence strength;
categories and related links;
maintenance notices where the page is incomplete, disputed, outdated, or under review.

A strong Metopedia article should let readers distinguish:

Layer	Meaning	Example wording
Evidence	What the source, record, image, data, text, or document directly shows	“The document states…”
Analysis	What can be examined from the evidence	“This pattern suggests…”
Inference	What may follow if the interpretation is correct	“One possible explanation is…”
Conclusion	What the article currently finds after weighing evidence and alternatives	“The strongest supported conclusion is…”
Uncertainty	What remains unresolved	“The record does not establish…”

Source standards summary

The basic source rule is to use the strongest available source for the claim being made. A primary document may be stronger than a summary article. A technical report may be stronger than a social-media claim. A peer-reviewed paper may be useful, but it is not immune to method error, citation error, framing bias, publication bias, or institutional conformity.

Source handling should follow these requirements:

cite the original source when possible;
archive important sources where legally and technically possible;
identify the source type;
distinguish primary, secondary, tertiary, testimonial, journalistic, institutional, forum, and AI-generated material;
quote only what is necessary;
avoid large unlicensed excerpts;
preserve enough context to prevent misrepresentation;
disclose conflicts between sources;
label unsupported claims;
avoid fabricated or unverifiable citations;
use dead-link notes and archive links when needed.

Source hierarchy

The source hierarchy is not a rigid scoreboard. It is a guide to inspectability.

General strength	Source type	Main use	Main caution
Strongest	Primary records, original documents, datasets, transcripts, statutes, court records, archival scans, direct measurements	Establishing what was recorded, said, measured, filed, enacted, or observed	May require interpretation; may be incomplete, biased, altered, or context-dependent
Strong	Peer-reviewed research, technical reports, official audits, scholarly editions, expert reports	Evaluating research claims, technical findings, historical analysis, and professional conclusions	Peer review is not proof of truth; methods and assumptions still matter
Moderate	Reputable journalism, institutional summaries, textbooks, encyclopedic summaries	Context, chronology, summaries, mainstream framing	May compress, omit, editorialize, or rely on secondary interpretation
Limited	Testimony, interviews, oral history, personal accounts, community knowledge	Human experience, witness claims, motive, memory, local context	Must be contextualized and checked against records where possible
Weak unless verified	Social media, forums, anonymous claims, screenshots, AI summaries, unsourced commentary	Leads, examples of public discourse, preliminary claims	High risk of fabrication, missing context, manipulation, or unverifiable authorship

Research method summary

The research method is summarized here for quick reference. The full procedure is at Metopedia:Research method.

Define the question.
Gather relevant evidence.
Preserve sources and archive links.
Separate evidence from interpretation.
Build an independent model or reconstruction where useful.
Review existing literature and official explanations.
Test alternative explanations.
State findings, limits, assumptions, and uncertainties.
Publish with citations, source notes, and method notes.
Preserve corrections, revisions, and unresolved issues.

A research page should not hide its method. If the article uses image analysis, linguistic reconstruction, statistical modeling, mathematical proof, code, archival comparison, chronology, or forensic inspection, the method should be stated plainly enough that another person can repeat or challenge it.

Reproducibility expectations

A reproducible page should include enough information for an independent reader to understand what was done. Depending on the subject, this may include:

source list;
archive links;
data files;
file hashes;
software names and versions;
command-line steps;
code snippets;
screenshots;
image-processing settings;
OCR method;
translation rules;
mathematical assumptions;
statistical formulas;
excluded sources;
known limitations;
correction history.

For technical pages, include a short reproducibility note when possible:

Reproducibility note: This analysis used the listed source files, the stated version of the tool, and the parameters shown below. Results may differ if the image, archive, OCR model, compression format, browser, or library version changes.

Fact-check standards

Fact-check pages should not be rhetorical takedowns. They should identify the exact claim, define the scope, state the verdict carefully, show the evidence, explain common confusion, and preserve the strongest opposing argument.

A fact-check should include:

article title beginning with “Fact Check:” where appropriate;
representative claim;
narrow scope;
verdict table;
evidence section;
source limitations;
confusion or miscommunication section;
what the claim can and cannot establish;
conclusion;
references;
see also links;
relevant categories.

Good fact-check verdicts should avoid false certainty. Prefer “true,” “mostly true,” “partly true,” “unsupported,” “misleading,” “false,” “unresolved,” or “not established” over emotional labels.

Investigative-page standards

Investigative pages should preserve chronology, source trail, claim boundaries, and alternative explanations. They should not treat suspicion as proof.

Investigative pages should include:

timeline;
actors and institutions involved;
primary records;
archive links;
evidentiary gaps;
alternative explanations;
source conflicts;
claims requiring further verification;
legal or privacy concerns;
living-person caution where applicable.

Original-research standards

Metopedia permits original research when it is labeled and method-based. Original research must not be disguised as established consensus.

Original-research pages should include:

the research question;
the author or contributor where appropriate;
source material;
method;
assumptions;
testable claims;
limitations;
comparison with existing sources;
unresolved questions;
correction process.

Original research becomes stronger when it is reproducible, falsifiable, externally reviewable, and separated from final assertion.

Technical-method standards

Pages involving code, image processing, OCR, mathematical models, forensic analysis, server configuration, MediaWiki configuration, or software tools should include enough detail to be useful without creating security risks.

Technical pages should include:

purpose;
environment;
input files;
output files;
dependencies;
commands;
risks;
limits;
validation checks;
rollback steps where relevant;
security cautions where relevant.

Do not publish secrets, private keys, passwords, session tokens, access credentials, private server paths that create a security risk, exploit instructions, or operational details that would materially assist abuse.

Multimedia standards

Images, tables, charts, audio, video, code blocks, and embedded media should support the article rather than decorate it.

Multimedia should include:

source;
author;
license;
date where known;
caption;
alt text where supported;
explanation of edits or processing;
file page with metadata;
fair-use rationale where needed;
warning if the media is illustrative rather than evidentiary.

Charts should identify the data source, axis meaning, scale, and any transformation. Images used as evidence should not be altered. If an image is enhanced, cropped, color-adjusted, compressed, annotated, or filtered, the article should say so.

Accessibility standards

Metopedia should be readable and navigable for as many users as possible. Accessibility is part of source integrity because unreadable evidence cannot be inspected.

Contributors should:

use logical heading order;
avoid heading jumps where possible;
write descriptive link text;
provide alt text or equivalent descriptions for meaningful images;
avoid color-only distinctions;
keep tables readable on mobile where possible;
avoid unnecessary layout complexity;
use captions for figures and tables;
avoid flashing or rapidly animated content;
identify language changes where practical;
prefer clear prose over decorative formatting.

Accessibility does not require making every technical page simple. It requires making the structure inspectable and the purpose clear.

Style and formatting standards

Contributors should follow these basic conventions:

use direct, analytical wording;
avoid personal insults;
avoid unnecessary sarcasm in policy and research pages;
define terms before using them heavily;
use section headings that describe the content;
cite sources near the claims they support;
avoid overquoting;
preserve uncertainty;
use tables when comparison is clearer than prose;
use bullet lists for procedures and requirements;
avoid dense walls of text when a section has many discrete points;
use categories consistently;
use redirects for likely alternate titles;
use “See also” sections for related Metopedia pages.

Tone should be critical but controlled. Metopedia can challenge institutions, consensus claims, academic errors, media narratives, and official accounts without turning analysis into personal attack.

Non-English source standards

Non-English sources may be used when they are relevant, but the article should preserve enough information for review.

Use:

original title;
translated title where helpful;
original-language quotation where necessary;
English translation;
translator identification if known;
explanation of disputed terms;
archive link where possible;
note when machine translation was used;
caution when a conclusion depends on a contested translation.

A translation should not smooth over ambiguity when the ambiguity affects the claim.

AI-generated content standards

AI-generated content may be useful for drafting, summarizing, searching, formatting, or brainstorming, but it is not a primary source and should not be treated as authority.

AI-generated material should not be cited as evidence for factual claims unless the article is specifically analyzing the AI output itself. AI summaries should be checked against primary or reliable secondary sources. AI-generated citations must be verified before use.

If AI tools materially assist a technical method, translation, transcription, OCR cleanup, or summary, the page should identify the role of the tool where the disclosure matters for reproducibility or trust.

Oral history and community knowledge

Oral history, community knowledge, family records, local tradition, and witness testimony can be valuable, especially where institutional records are incomplete. They must be handled carefully.

Such material should identify:

who is speaking, if safe and permitted;
when the statement was made;
whether the statement is firsthand or secondhand;
what records support or conflict with it;
whether anonymity is needed;
whether publication creates safety or privacy risks;
whether the statement is being used as evidence, context, or lead material.

Community knowledge should not be dismissed merely because it is not institutional, but it should not be overstated beyond what it can support.

Conduct standards summary

The basic conduct rule is:

Challenge claims, sources, methods, and conclusions. Do not harass, threaten, stalk, dox, impersonate, or target people.

Contributors may strongly disagree. They may criticize source use, logic, evidence, methodology, institutional behavior, public claims, public documents, and public narratives. They may not use disagreement as a pretext for abuse.

Conduct violations include:

threats;
harassment;
doxxing;
stalking;
impersonation;
personal attacks unrelated to evidence;
targeted abuse;
edit warring;
malicious automation;
citation manipulation;
fabricated evidence;
privacy violations;
uploading malware;
ban evasion;
disruptive spam;
coordinated vandalism.

Dispute standards

Disputes should be resolved through evidence and process rather than status or volume.

A useful dispute response should:

identify the exact disputed claim;
identify the source or absence of source;
explain the evidence problem;
propose a correction;
preserve the strongest counterargument;
avoid personal attack;
escalate only when ordinary correction fails.

Disputes should not be settled by deleting inconvenient material, flooding a page, attacking a contributor, or insisting that authority alone ends the question.

Copyright standards summary

Contributors must have the right to submit text, images, files, data, quotations, and uploads. Metopedia’s default text license applies unless a page states otherwise.

Contributors should:

avoid large unlicensed excerpts;
quote only what is necessary for criticism, commentary, evidence, or context;
provide source, author, license, and date for files;
use fair-use rationales where needed;
identify public-domain status where claimed;
avoid uploading copyrighted files without permission or lawful basis;
respond promptly to copyright concerns.

Privacy standards summary

Metopedia is public by design, but users should avoid publishing private information.

Do not publish:

home addresses;
phone numbers;
private email addresses;
government identification numbers;
private photographs;
credentials;
medical records;
financial records;
private messages without a valid basis;
information that creates a credible safety risk.

Privacy concerns should be sent to [email protected] with the page, revision, file, or log entry involved.

Transparency standards

Metopedia should document major policy actions where legally and safely possible. This includes significant removals, takedown requests, copyright actions, legal threats, administrator actions, privacy redactions, and major content disputes.

Pages should preserve explanations through edit summaries, talk-page notes, deletion logs, protection logs, policy notes, or administrator documentation where appropriate.

Transparency must be balanced with privacy and safety. Some details may need redaction.

Governance standards

Policy pages should state who can enforce them, how decisions are reviewed, and how users may request reconsideration.

Until then, administrator decisions should follow these principles:

act only for policy, safety, legal, technical, or source-integrity reasons;
use the least restrictive effective action;
explain the reason where practical;
preserve logs where possible;
permit appeal or reconsideration where safe and reasonable;
avoid conflicts of interest;
document major actions.

Notability and inclusion standards

Metopedia is not a general encyclopedia. It should avoid creating broad generic pages that already exist elsewhere unless the page serves a Metopedia-specific purpose.

A topic is more suitable for Metopedia when it involves:

original research;
source reconstruction;
disputed claims;
institutional critique;
methodological analysis;
evidence preservation;
cognitive-bias analysis;
fact-checking;
forensic review;
translation or linguistic review;
mathematical or technical reconstruction;
Metopedia-specific terminology;
user-created frameworks;
public-interest documentation.

A page is weaker when it is only a generic summary, promotional material, unsourced opinion, duplicate of Wikipedia-style coverage, or a topic with no clear evidentiary basis.

Page-quality levels

Metopedia pages may be understood by development level.

Level	Description	Required action
Stub	Minimal page with limited structure or sources	Expand scope, sources, and definitions
Developing	Usable page with structure but incomplete evidence or counterarguments	Add sources, limitations, and opposing views
Reviewed	Structured page with citations, method, scope, and clear conclusion	Maintain and update as sources change
Technical/reproducible	Includes method, data, code, parameters, or repeatable process	Preserve inputs, outputs, and version notes
Disputed	Contains unresolved disagreement or source conflict	Add dispute summary, competing evidence, and review notes
Policy-grade	Stable enough to guide contributors or administrators	Keep concise, current, and cross-linked

Maintenance notices

Pages should use maintenance notices where needed. Notices may identify incomplete sourcing, missing archive links, unclear scope, disputed claims, outdated material, unsupported statements, cleanup needs, accessibility issues, or policy review needs.

Maintenance notices should not be used as punishment or stigma. They are navigation aids that help readers understand the page’s current reliability and development state.

Quick contributor checklist

Before publishing or expanding a page, ask:

Is the scope clear?
Are claims separated from evidence?
Are sources cited near the claims they support?
Are primary sources used where possible?
Are archive links included for fragile sources?
Are counterarguments or alternative explanations represented fairly?
Is uncertainty preserved?
Are images, files, tables, or code properly explained?
Are living-person, privacy, copyright, and safety risks addressed?
Does the page belong on Metopedia rather than being a generic encyclopedia duplicate?
Does the tone challenge claims rather than attack people?
Are categories, see-also links, and maintenance notices included where useful?