Trust / Editorial standards
Useful before prolific.
Our standards are designed to make a small publication trustworthy—not to make an automated content pipeline look busy.
Selection
We publish when a subject supports a clear reader job: find, understand, or use. We do not rewrite press releases, scrape community posts into listicles, or create pages for every title merely because a keyword exists.
Evidence labels
- Hands-on: direct use or play, with platform and relevant version noted.
- Researched: analysis based on named primary or reliable secondary sources.
- Historical reference: reconstruction from archived records, with gaps stated plainly.
- Editorial analysis: an argued interpretation rather than a claim of universal fact.
Sources and links
Fact-dependent pieces include a source list and a last-reviewed date. We prefer first-party documentation, project records, credible cultural institutions, and direct evidence. A source link does not transfer its copyright to us; quotation remains brief and attributed.
AI-assisted work
Automation may help organize research, test links, check structure, and prepare drafts. It cannot invent play experience, sources, quotations, people, credentials, verification dates, or product testing. A page is publishable only after its claims, links, and framing have been reviewed against the named evidence.
Corrections and updates
Substantive corrections change the article’s updated date and should be explained when the correction materially affects the conclusion. Routine spelling or formatting changes do not reset publication freshness.
Sponsored material
Sponsored work is labeled before its headline or opening body, identifies the sponsor, and uses appropriate sponsored link attributes. Sponsors may check factual statements about their own product; they do not receive an undisclosed right to rewrite our judgment.