VIEWPOINT WIKI — EDITORIAL POLICY

Last revised: May 2026

—

Viewpoint Wiki exists to help people understand what others actually believe, and why. It is not a debate platform. It does not have a house position. It does not seek consensus. Its only editorial goal is accurate, fair, and complete representation of the full range of human viewpoints on the topics it covers.

This policy governs what gets published, what gets rejected, and why.

—

Viewpoint Wiki organizes its content into six distinct page types. Every page on this wiki is one of these six types. Editors should identify the type before creating a page, because the type determines the page's structure, citation standards, and editorial rules.

History pages document the chronological development of a topic — what happened, who did what, when, and with what consequences. A History page makes factual claims and is held to factual standards. It does not advocate for any interpretation of those facts. Where scholarly interpretation is genuinely contested, the History page notes the dispute in one sentence and links to the appropriate Debate or Viewpoint page rather than resolving the dispute in the text.

Citation standard: Reputable historians and, where available, primary sources and eyewitness accounts. Academic scholarship takes precedence.

Structure:

1. A lede paragraph stating the scope of the article and linking to related pages (Main Topic, Consensus, or other History pages as appropriate)
2. Chronological body sections, each headed by era, figure, or development
3. A Controversies section listing genuinely contested interpretations, each in one sentence with a link to the Debate or Viewpoint page that addresses it — without resolving the disputes on this page
4. Footnotes with full citations

Page naming: [Topic] - History

Main Topic pages provide a neutral overview of a topic: what it is, what the current state of knowledge or debate is, and where the major viewpoints on it can be found. A Main Topic page is not a Viewpoint page — it does not argue for any position. It is also not a History page — it is not primarily chronological. It is an orientation to the topic that helps a reader understand the landscape and find the pages most relevant to what they are looking for.

A Main Topic page may accurately state that a scientific or scholarly consensus exists on a question. It may not use that consensus as a basis for dismissing dissenting viewpoints. Dissenting viewpoints get their own pages.

Citation standard: Sources a reasonable person would consider authoritative on the subject. Academic scholarship takes precedence. Other sources are acceptable where relevant and are not dismissed unless they would be better suited to a Viewpoint page.

Structure:

1. A lede paragraph defining the topic and its scope
2. A summary of the current state of knowledge or debate, written in neutral third-person voice
3. A Consensus Status note, if one or more Consensus pages exist for this topic: a brief statement of whether broad expert consensus exists, is partial, or is absent, with a link to the relevant Consensus page(s) for detail
4. A Viewpoints section listing and briefly describing the major viewpoints on the topic, each linked to its Viewpoint page
5. A Related Pages section linking to relevant History pages, Debate pages, Consensus pages, and other Main Topic pages
6. Footnotes with full citations

Page naming: [Topic]

Viewpoint pages represent a specific position on a topic as its most thoughtful advocates would state it. A Viewpoint page is not a debate. It does not present counterarguments. It does not hedge. It represents one viewpoint, fairly and completely, in the third-person descriptive voice.

The steelmanning standard applies in full to every Viewpoint page. The page must represent the position as its best-informed advocates would recognize it — not as its critics would caricature it.

A Viewpoint page may be created for any position that meets the criteria in the What Earns a Page section of this policy, including minority and heterodox positions. Minority status does not relegate a viewpoint to a footnote on someone else's page. It gets its own page.

Citation standard: Sources that a person holding this viewpoint would recognize as authoritative. The citation standard is internal to the viewpoint — it reflects what the community of people holding this position considers credible, not what outside critics consider credible.

Structure:

1. A lede paragraph stating the viewpoint clearly and identifying who holds it
2. A section presenting the core arguments or premises of the viewpoint
3. A section on the viewpoint's history or development, if relevant
4. A Notable Proponents section identifying key figures associated with the viewpoint, with brief descriptions
5. A Controversies or Internal Debates section, if the viewpoint has meaningful internal disagreements
6. A Related Pages section linking to the Main Topic page, other Viewpoint pages on the same topic, and relevant History, Debate, and Consensus pages
7. Footnotes with full citations

Page naming: [Topic] - [Viewpoint Name] - Viewpoint

Debate pages sit between History and Main Topic pages on one side, and individual Viewpoint pages on the other. A Debate page presents the competing arguments on a genuinely contested question — without resolving them — and links to the Viewpoint pages that represent each position in full.

There are two kinds of Debate pages:

1. Topic Debate pages cover contested interpretations of a topic that cannot be attributed to a single named viewpoint — for example, historiographical disputes, contested causal claims, or unresolved empirical questions where multiple distinct positions exist.
2. Viewpoint Debate pages cover the arguments for and against a specific named viewpoint, presenting each side as its advocates would state it.

In both cases, the Debate page does not adjudicate. It maps the dispute. The steelmanning standard applies to every position presented on a Debate page — including positions the page's author finds unconvincing.

A Debate page is not a substitute for Viewpoint pages. Where a position presented on a Debate page is substantial enough to warrant its own full Viewpoint page, that page should be created and linked.

Citation standard: Sources that advocates of each respective position would recognize as authoritative. Where positions have different citation communities, each position is cited from within its own community.

Structure:

1. A lede paragraph identifying the disputed question, why it is contested, and what kinds of arguments the competing positions make — without prejudging any of them
2. A section for each major position, presenting its argument as its advocates would state it, with a link to the full Viewpoint page where one exists
3. A Points of Agreement section, if any common ground exists between the positions
4. A Related Pages section linking to the Main Topic page, relevant Viewpoint pages, History pages, and Consensus pages
5. Footnotes with full citations

Page naming:

1. Topic Debate: [Topic] - Debate
2. Viewpoint Debate: [Topic] - [Viewpoint Name] - Debate

Consensus pages document the current state of broad, established agreement among recognized experts on a question within a defined domain. A Consensus page is not an argument for a position — it is a description of what the relevant expert community has concluded, and on what evidentiary basis.

A Consensus page may document full consensus, partial consensus, or the absence of consensus. Where consensus is absent or contested, the page documents that fact — identifying where expert opinion diverges, on what questions, and for what reasons. A Consensus page that honestly documents the limits of agreement is as valuable as one that documents broad agreement.

A Consensus page does not settle the underlying debate. Viewpoints that dissent from the consensus are not suppressed or dismissed — they get their own Viewpoint pages. The existence of a Consensus page on a topic means that the state of expert agreement is worth documenting. It does not mean dissenting viewpoints are unworthy of representation.

Citation standard: Consensus pages cite expert opinion and evidence that meets all of the following criteria:

1. The source is recognized as authoritative within the relevant field, not merely credentialed in an adjacent or unrelated one.
2. The claim is supported by replication, peer review, established case law, or equivalent domain-appropriate validation — not by assertion alone, however eminent the source.
3. The consensus is current. Superseded conclusions, retracted studies, and overturned precedents are not evidence of present consensus. Where a consensus has shifted over time, the page should note the shift.
4. The source is cited for what it actually establishes. Overstating the scope of a finding is grounds for a dispute flag or rejection.

What does not qualify as evidence on a Consensus page:

1. Expert opinion outside the source's domain of demonstrated competence
2. Unreplicated findings presented as settled
3. Institutional position statements unsupported by the underlying evidence they claim to represent
4. Consensus by assertion — the claim that experts agree, without documentation that they do

Structure:

1. A lede paragraph stating the domain, the question, and the nature of the consensus — including whether full consensus, partial consensus, or absence of consensus is being documented
2. A summary of the evidence base: what has been established, by what means, and to what degree of confidence
3. A section noting the limits and boundaries of the consensus: what questions remain open, where expert opinion diverges, and what the consensus does not claim to settle
4. A Dissenting Viewpoints section linking to Viewpoint pages that challenge the consensus — without characterizing those viewpoints as wrong
5. A Related Pages section linking to the relevant Main Topic page, History pages, Debate pages, and other Consensus pages
6. Footnotes with full citations

Page naming: [Topic] - [Domain] - Consensus (examples: Heliocentrism - Scientific - Consensus, Minimum Wage - Economic - Consensus, Fourth Amendment - Legal - Consensus)

Controversy pages document a specific, identifiable controversy — a dispute, scandal, episode, or ongoing conflict that has attracted significant public, scholarly, or institutional attention. A Controversy page is distinct from a Main Topic page (which orients a reader to a subject) and a Debate page (which maps competing arguments on a contested question). A Controversy page describes the controversy itself: what it is, how it developed, who is involved, what is at stake, and what the major positions on it are.

The overview sections of a Controversy page are held to the same neutrality standard as a Main Topic page. The viewpoints and debates sections are held to the same steelmanning standard as Viewpoint and Debate pages.

Citation standard: The overview and timeline sections follow the History page citation standard: reputable sources, primary sources where available. The viewpoints and debates sections follow the Viewpoint page citation standard: sources that advocates of each position would recognize as authoritative.

Structure:

1. A lede paragraph identifying the controversy, its scope, and why it is contested
2. An Overview section providing a neutral description of the controversy: what happened or is happening, who the principal parties are, and what is at stake
3. A Timeline section, if the controversy has a meaningful chronological dimension, with a link to a full History page where one exists or should exist
4. A Consensus Status note, if one or more Consensus pages are relevant to the controversy: a brief statement of the state of expert agreement, with a link to the relevant Consensus page(s)
5. A Viewpoints section presenting the major positions on the controversy, each described in a paragraph or two as its advocates would state it, with a link to the full Viewpoint page where one exists
6. A Debates section identifying the key contested questions within the controversy, each described in a paragraph or two with the competing arguments mapped, with links to full Debate pages where they exist
7. A Related Pages section linking to the relevant Main Topic page, History pages, Debate pages, Viewpoint pages, and Consensus pages
8. Footnotes with full citations

Page naming: [Topic] - Controversy

Pages link out rather than absorb. The general flow is: History and Main Topic pages hand off contested questions to Debate pages; Debate pages hand off individual positions to Viewpoint pages; Controversy pages hand off in-depth treatment to Viewpoint, Debate, and History pages. No page in this chain reproduces the work of the pages below it.

Specifically:

1. A History page that touches on a contested interpretation links to the Debate or Viewpoint page that addresses it — it does not reproduce arguments in the history.
2. A Main Topic page that references a specific position links to that position's Viewpoint page — it does not summarize the argument at length.
3. A Debate page that presents a position substantial enough to warrant its own full treatment links to the relevant Viewpoint page — it does not substitute for it.
4. A Consensus page that notes dissenting positions links to their Viewpoint pages — it does not characterize those positions on their behalf.
5. A Controversy page that describes a viewpoint or debate in its Viewpoints or Debates sections links to the full Viewpoint or Debate page — it does not reproduce that page's depth of treatment.

This keeps each page doing its own job cleanly and prevents any single page from becoming a covert argument for a position it is not supposed to be taking.

—

Viewpoint Wiki's default posture is to publish, not to gatekeep. A submission is rejected only when it meets one of the specific grounds for rejection listed below. The burden of proof is on the reviewer who wants to reject, not on the contributor who submitted.

Disagreeing with a viewpoint is not grounds for rejection. Finding a viewpoint objectionable, fringe, unpopular, or heterodox is not grounds for rejection. A viewpoint does not need to be mainstream, credentialed, or comfortable to earn a page on this wiki.

—

Any viewpoint earns a page if it meets all four of the following:

1. It is held sincerely by at least some identifiable people, and those people can be cited or described.
2. It is meaningfully distinct from viewpoints that already have pages. “Meaningfully distinct” means the philosophical foundations, conclusions, or key premises differ in a way that cannot be adequately captured by an existing page. Tone, emphasis, and style differences alone do not make a viewpoint distinct enough to merit a separate page.
3. It can be described in the third-person descriptive voice.
4. It does not advocate for illegal acts or incite violence against any person or group.

A viewpoint held by a small minority — including a minority of one — may have a page. Minority status is not disqualifying. If the viewpoint is genuinely distinct and can be described fairly, it gets a page.

A Debate page earns a page when a question is genuinely contested between two or more distinct positions and the dispute is substantial enough to warrant structured presentation. A Debate page should not be created merely because a topic is controversial — it should be created when the competing positions are developed enough that mapping them serves a reader better than a one-sentence reference on a History or Main Topic page.

A Controversy page earns a page when a specific dispute, scandal, episode, or conflict has attracted sufficient attention — public, scholarly, or institutional — that a reader seeking to understand it would benefit from a dedicated treatment. A Controversy page should not be created merely because a topic is contested; it should be created when there is an identifiable controversy with its own parties, history, and stakes that is distinct from the broader topic it arises from.

—

A proposed page will be rejected if:

1. The viewpoint is not meaningfully distinct from an existing page. In this case, the appropriate resolution is to improve the existing page to capture the variation, not to create a near-duplicate.
2. The page requires advocating for violence against any person or group as a means to an end. Describing the historical existence of such advocacy is permitted on History pages. Articulating a viewpoint that has led some of its holders to advocate violence is permitted, provided the page describes rather than endorses. But a page that functions as a call to violence will not be published.
3. The submission is demonstrably in bad faith — that is, it misrepresents the viewpoint it claims to describe, attributes positions to a group that its members would uniformly reject, or is designed to discredit rather than represent.

—

Every Viewpoint page, every position presented on a Debate page, and every viewpoint or debate described on a Controversy page is held to the same standard: represent the position as its most thoughtful, well-read advocates would state it.

This means:

1. No scare quotes around the name of a viewpoint or its key concepts.
2. No qualifiers implying the position is held without good reason: not “without evidence,” not “incorrectly,” not “despite the scientific consensus,” not “falsely.”
3. No framing the viewpoint through the eyes of its critics.
4. No implying, by tone or word choice, that the position is embarrassing, fringe, or beneath serious consideration.

This standard applies uniformly across all viewpoints — including viewpoints that editors or reviewers find repugnant. A page that meets the steelmanning standard for progressive viewpoints but not for conservative ones, or vice versa, fails the standard.

If you find a page that fails this standard, flag it. That is exactly the kind of edit this wiki wants.

—

A viewpoint held by a small minority does not, for that reason alone, belong on an existing Main Topic page or mixed into a broader viewpoint page. Minority viewpoints get their own pages.

This serves two purposes. First, it prevents a minority position from being misrepresented as more representative than it is. Second, it gives the minority viewpoint its own fair treatment rather than relegating it to a footnote on someone else's page.

When a reviewer or editor determines that a viewpoint is held by a sufficiently small minority that it warrants its own dedicated page rather than inclusion in a broader article, the appropriate action is to create that page — not to suppress the viewpoint.

—

No page on this wiki may ascribe to an entire group the actions, statements, or beliefs of a subset of that group's members — unless there is direct evidence that those actions, statements, or beliefs are representative of the group as a whole or are endorsed by its recognized leadership or governing body.

This applies symmetrically. It applies to religious groups, political movements, ethnic groups, ideological communities, nations, and any other collective. Describing what some members of a group believe is not the same as describing what the group believes. Pages must be precise about this distinction.

—

When a reviewer believes a factual claim in a submission is genuinely contested — not merely controversial, but disputed by credible sources — the reviewer may publish the article with a dispute flag on that specific claim. The flag must include:

1. A brief description of what the dispute is
2. At least one citation to a source that disputes the claim

A dispute flag is not a rejection. It is a transparency mechanism. It tells the reader that this particular claim is not settled, while allowing the viewpoint to be published.

The bar for a dispute flag is genuine factual contestation, not disagreement with the interpretation. Whether a fact supports a particular conclusion is a matter of viewpoint, not a dispute.

—

Editors and reviewers are expected to demonstrate epistemic humility — the ability to represent viewpoints they do not hold, and a willingness to change their minds when evidence warrants it.

Editors and reviewers must disclose conflicts of interest when reviewing pages that touch on their own strongly held positions. In cases of conflict, a second reviewer should be involved.

Bad faith editing — submitting content designed to discredit a viewpoint rather than represent it, or rejecting content for reasons other than those listed in this policy — is grounds for removal of editing privileges.

—

This policy is not a commitment to false balance. Not every topic has two equally valid sides, and this wiki does not pretend otherwise. A History page can accurately state that heliocentrism is the scientific consensus. A Consensus page can accurately state that a claim has been repeatedly tested and broadly upheld. What it cannot do is use that framing as a weapon to dismiss viewpoints that dissent from the consensus without giving those viewpoints a fair page of their own.

This policy is not a license for bad faith contributions. The wiki's openness is predicated on contributors acting in good faith — sincerely trying to represent a viewpoint fairly. Bad faith contributions are the exception that proves the rule, and will be treated accordingly.

This policy is not permanent. It will be revised as the wiki grows and as edge cases reveal gaps or ambiguities. The revision history will be maintained.