Editorial policy

This is the editorial standard every page is held to. It is short because the site is young; it will grow as cases arise, and changes will be dated.

Neutrality and sourcing

• Every claim carries a citation to a source the reader can open. Sources are rated by a fixed list of publishers, never by a model.
• Opinions are attributed. Promotional language is removed by the separate check described in how pages are made.
• A page describes; it does not recommend.

Pages about living people

• Conservative writing: the standard being worked toward is two independent sources for a claim about a living person, or it is left out. It applies to unflattering material and favorable material alike, and it is why some things a reader might expect to find are not on a page. Not every page published so far reaches it: some rest on one source, or on sources connected to the subject, and a page's references show which.
• A presumption of privacy for anything not already public and relevant. No details about minors.
• A named human reviewer on every such page is a goal, not the practice today: no page here names one yet, and each page's “About this page” box says so.

Corrections and right of reply

Anyone who is the subject of a page, or who finds an error, can ask for a correction through the “Suggest a change” link on that page. The goal is that a named person answers each one, and that a disputed claim can be held out of the page while it is checked. Someone who is the subject of a page can also sign in and mark it, on the page itself, as accurate or disputed: what they said is shown in the “About this page” box. A public correction log for each page is planned and not yet built.

Conflicts of interest

Heartipedia has pages about its own founder, its own company and its own products. They are held to the same standard as every other page: a figure the company published about itself is attributed to the company and dated, never asserted in this site's voice.