Editorial Principles

Claims and forms

State what kind of thing a page offers. A theological interpretation is not an empirical finding. A proposal is not a report of use. A fictional voice is not a transcript, and a compelling image is not a witness.

Specific factual claims need identifiable support proportionate to their importance. Do not invent studies, quotations, biography, attendance, practice results or endorsements. Where a source is available, describe what it supports and where it stops. Where only a person’s account is available, attribute it as an account.

The AI disclosure defines certainty and production labels. They are applied by the publisher, not independently certified. A label that overstates the record is itself an error to correct.

Revision and retraction

A change of meaning receives a date, summary and reason on the affected page. Minor spelling, formatting and link repairs do not need a doctrinal revision. The website release number and a text’s revision are distinct: unchanged writing need not acquire a new document version just to match a release.

Substantively replaced texts remain available in the historical reader, with their former wording and metadata. A merged page receives a permanent route to the argument’s new home; its old source remains inspectable. Permanent Code identifiers are not reassigned.

If a claim cannot responsibly be repaired, retract it and say why. The point is not to demonstrate that every new edition is wiser, but to let a reader compare the reasons and decide.

Limits of preservation

Do not remove an institutional error merely to avoid embarrassment. Do not use that rule to retain someone’s intimate information without a sufficient reason, or to republish material unlawfully. Necessary redaction should state its scope and reason without repeating the protected detail. Source hashes document the copies supplied, not a promise that every byte must remain public forever.

An archive records a position. It does not keep that position current, and it should not imply that a person remains bound to words they have withdrawn.

Authority and disagreement

There is no secret advanced teaching, paid access to a deeper meaning, or machine-sanctioned interpreter. Readers may dispute both a text and its official explanation. The publisher still controls publication; the governance account names that limit.

Keep a consequential objection when it exposes a live cost or contradiction. Do not add decorative disagreement merely to make a position appear balanced. Nor does openness require anyone to remain available for harassment or endless repetition. A response can name what would justify reopening a question and then end.

Send a correction through Contact. A defensible correction should not depend on the status or politeness of the person who noticed it.