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: a claim about a living person needs two independent sources, or it is left out. This applies to unflattering material and favourable material alike, and it is why some things a reader might expect to find are not on a page.
• A presumption of privacy for anything not already public and relevant. No details about minors.
• Every such page names a human reviewer.

Corrections and right of reply

Anyone who is the subject of a page, or who finds an error, can ask for a correction. Requests are answered by a named person; 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

Pages about the people and companies behind Heartipedia carry a notice saying so, and are held to the same standard as every other page.