Editorial policy

Our Standards

The credibility of this project depends on using the same evidence rules for people and institutions we agree with and those we do not.

Core promise: We will show the strongest evidence we can find, disclose important limitations, distinguish facts from judgment, and correct meaningful errors.

1. Primary evidence first

Whenever possible, we rely on original documents, complete video, direct statements, public records, official policies, court filings, complete data sets, or firsthand evidence that can be authenticated. A headline, cropped clip, anonymous post, or secondhand summary may begin an inquiry, but it is not enough by itself to support a firm conclusion.

2. Comparable means genuinely comparable

A valid double-standard claim requires more than two outcomes that look different. We compare the decision-maker, the rule involved, relevant timing, conduct, available evidence, authority, consequences, and other material circumstances. When differences matter, we say so.

3. Fair description of competing views

We describe the strongest reasonable explanation from each side rather than attacking the weakest version. Criticism should address what was actually said or done—not motives we cannot prove.

4. Right of response

For substantial investigations, we will make a reasonable effort to contact the person or organization criticized, provide enough detail to understand the issue, and include a meaningful response or note that no response was received.

5. Facts, analysis, and opinion are different

Source-supported facts will be presented separately from our interpretation. When evidence is incomplete, disputed, or uncertain, we will say so plainly.

6. Corrections and updates

Material errors will not be quietly erased. We will correct the content, identify what changed, and preserve a dated correction note when the error affected the meaning of the piece. New evidence may also be added as an update.

7. No harassment or collective blame

We focus criticism on conduct, decisions, rules, and institutions. We do not endorse threats, harassment, dehumanizing language, doxxing, or blaming entire racial, religious, ethnic, sexual, or political groups for the conduct of individuals.

8. Submission safety

Do not send confidential company records, private medical information, unredacted identification numbers, illegally obtained material, or anything that could place another person in danger. Publicly available or lawfully obtained evidence is preferred.

The Same Standard Test

Question 1: What happened, and what evidence proves it?
Question 2: What exact rule, policy, principle, or standard applies?
Question 3: What is the best comparable case, and how is it similar or different?
Question 4: What explanation was offered for the different treatment?
Question 5: Would we accept the same reasoning if the people or viewpoints were reversed?
Question 6: What consistent standard should apply to future cases?