Editorial Policy
Our editorial policy explains topic selection, sourcing, authorship, review, updates, corrections, and the distinction between evidence and judgment.
Our goal is to publish material that performs a clear decision job for the reader. Search visibility is treated as a distribution outcome, not as a substitute for usefulness.
Sourcing hierarchy
We prefer primary documentation, official policy pages, standards bodies, original research, and direct product documentation. Reputable secondary reporting may be used for context or observation when a primary source does not address the issue.
Authorship and review
Each article names an author. Material that requires a second review may also name a reviewer and review date. Biographical pages explain relevant experience without inflating credentials.
Evidence and interpretation
A sourced fact should not be presented as first-hand experience. Editorial frameworks, recommendations, examples, and inferences should be labeled through the surrounding prose so readers can distinguish them from external facts.
Updates and corrections
Substantive changes receive an updated date. Corrections should fix the relevant text, preserve an accurate update history, and avoid silently changing the conclusion without explanation when the change is material.
Frequently asked questions
How are sources selected for technical claims?
Primary documentation, standards, and first-party policy pages are preferred whenever they directly support the claim being made.
Does every article require the same evidence level?
No. The required evidence depends on the claim, but factual and time-sensitive assertions should be attributable and reviewable.