📋

Overview & Core Principles

The foundational philosophy behind Aevum content

Aevum Encyclopedia thrives on the contributions of a global community. Every article represents a shared commitment to accuracy, accessibility, and intellectual integrity. Before writing, internalize these five core principles:

1

Encyclopedic Purpose

Required

Articles must inform, not persuade, entertain, or promote. Every sentence should advance the reader's understanding of the topic. Avoid original research, speculation, and editorializing.

2

Verifiability Above All

Required

Any factual claim must be attributable to a reliable, published source. If it cannot be sourced, it does not belong in the article — regardless of how true it may seem.

3

Neutral Point of View

Required

Present all significant, published viewpoints fairly and proportionally. Attribute controversial claims to their sources. Never advocate for a position — report on its existence.

4

Readability & Clarity

Recommended

Write for a general audience with curiosity, not assumed expertise. Define jargon, use clear structure, and aim for prose that is authoritative yet approachable.

5

Living Documentation

Recommended

Encyclopedia articles are never "finished." Commit to periodic review, incorporate new evidence, and update context as understanding evolves.

💡

New Contributor Tip

Start by improving existing articles rather than creating new ones. Fix broken citations, update outdated information, or expand thin sections. This is the fastest way to learn the community's standards.

⭐

Article Quality Standards

What makes an article exemplary

Quality Tiers

All articles are evaluated across five quality tiers. Understanding these helps you target the right level of depth for your contribution.

Tier Label Description Min. Length
1 Stub Basic information, minimal sourcing, needs significant expansion 200 words
2 Start Covers fundamentals with adequate sourcing and structure 1,000 words
3 C-Class Comprehensive treatment with reliable sources and good prose 3,000 words
4 B-Class Near-complete coverage, excellent sourcing, polished writing 5,000 words
5 Featured Definitive reference, expert-reviewed, exemplary presentation 7,500+ words

The Quality Checklist

Before submitting an article for review, verify it against this checklist:

  • Article has a clear, descriptive lead paragraph that defines the topic in 2–3 sentences
  • All factual claims are supported by inline citations to reliable sources
  • Article maintains a neutral, encyclopedic tone throughout
  • Logical section structure with descriptive headings (H2, H3 hierarchy)
  • No original research, analysis, or unsourced opinion
  • References section is complete and properly formatted
  • Internal links connect to related Aevum articles
  • Grammar, spelling, and punctuation have been proofread
  • Images/media include proper attribution and licensing
  • Article includes categories and relevant metadata tags
✅ Do
  • Lead with the most essential, defining information
  • Use specific, precise language
  • Cite primary sources where possible
  • Balance depth with readability
  • Include contextual background
❌ Don't
  • Buried the lead with tangential details
  • Use vague phrases like "many believe"
  • Rely solely on tertiary sources
  • Assume reader has prior knowledge
  • Include promotional or biased language
📚

Sourcing & Citations

Building an ironclad evidentiary foundation

The credibility of Aevum Encyclopedia rests on the quality of its sourcing. Every claim — from widely accepted facts to contested viewpoints — must be traceable to a reliable, verifiable source.

Source Reliability Hierarchy

Reliability Source Type Examples
🟢 High Peer-reviewed journals, academic books, official publications Nature, Lancet, government reports
🔵 Moderate Reputable news outlets, established trade publications Reuters, AP, BBC, NYT
🟡 Limited Blogs, self-published, niche outlets (with caveats) Subject-matter expert blogs
🔴 Unreliable Social media, forums, wikis, propaganda outlets Reddit, Twitter, personal websites

Citation Formatting

Use the standardized citation format below. Our AI-assisted tool can auto-format references from URLs or DOIs.

Citation Format
// Journal Article Author(s). (Year). "Article Title." Journal Name, Volume(Issue), Page Range. DOI // Book Author(s). (Year). Book Title (Edition, if applicable). Publisher. ISBN // Online Source Author(s)/Organization. (Year, Month Day). "Page Title." Site Name. URL (Accessed: Date)
⚠️

Circular Sourcing Warning

Never cite Aevum Encyclopedia articles as sources within other Aevum articles. This creates circular verification and undermines the integrity of our knowledge base. Always trace claims back to original, external sources.

Special Cases

When sources contradict, present both viewpoints proportionally and attribute each to its source. Use language like "According to [Source A]..." and "However, [Source B] argues...". Avoid declaring one source definitively correct unless the consensus among experts is clear.
Primary sources are appropriate for directly quoting or paraphrasing specific statements, describing events as reported by participants, or referencing official documents. However, always prefer secondary analysis when available, as primary sources can be self-serving or lack context.
As a rule of thumb, aim for at least one citation per paragraph, and one per factual claim in dense paragraphs. For highly technical or controversial topics, each individual claim should be independently sourced. When in doubt, over-cite rather than under-cite.
Preprints (arXiv, bioRxiv, SSRN) may be used to describe very recent developments not yet covered in peer-reviewed literature, but they must be clearly labeled as preprints. They should not be the sole source for significant claims, and the article should note that the work has not undergone peer review.
⚖️

Neutrality & Tone

Maintaining objectivity in every sentence

Neutrality is not the absence of perspective — it is the fair representation of all significant perspectives. A neutral article lets evidence speak, attributes claims to their holders, and avoids language that implies endorsement.

Language Patterns to Adopt and Avoid

✅ Neutral Language
  • "Researchers have found that..."
  • "The policy was criticized by..."
  • "According to the 2024 WHO report..."
  • "Supporters argue that..., while opponents contend..."
  • "The theory posits that..."
❌ Loaded Language
  • "It is obvious that..."
  • "The disastrous policy..."
  • "Everyone knows that..."
  • "Clearly, the best approach is..."
  • "The flawed theory suggests..."

Handling Controversial Topics

1

Proportional Weight

Required

Reflect the actual proportion of support each viewpoint has in the published literature. Marginal views should not be given equal space to mainstream consensus, but they should be acknowledged when significant.

2

Attribute Strong Claims

Required

Never state a controversial claim as fact. Use attribution: "The IPCC states that..." or "Studies by Chen et al. suggest...". This separates the encyclopedia's voice from the source's claims.

3

Avoid False Balance

Recommended

Neutrality does not mean presenting two sides as equal when evidence strongly supports one. Scientifically settled topics (e.g., climate change, germ theory) should reflect the consensus, with marginal dissent noted only in brief, properly attributed context.

ℹ️

Editorial Note

When in doubt about neutrality, ask: "Could a reasonable person with a different viewpoint read this and feel their position was misrepresented?" If yes, revise for greater balance and clearer attribution.

🏗️

Structure & Formatting

Organizing content for maximum clarity

Standard Article Anatomy

Every Aevum article follows a proven structure that helps readers find information efficiently and ensures comprehensive coverage.

Article Structure
1. Lead Section ├── Definition / Summary (2-4 sentences) ├── Key facts (dates, figures, classification) └── Scope statement 2. Background / Context ├── Historical origins ├── Related concepts └── Why this topic matters 3. Main Body Sections ├── Subsection A (thematic grouping) ├── Subsection B (chronological or logical) └── Subsection C (with H3 sub-sections as needed) 4. Controversies / Debates └── (Only if notable; attribute all claims) 5. See Also └── Internal links to 5-10 related articles 6. References └── Formatted bibliographic entries 7. Further Reading └── Optional: extended resources 8. External Links └── Official sites, databases, archives

Headings and Hierarchy

Level Usage Example
H2 Major sections (3–8 per article) History, Methodology, Applications
H3 Sub-sections under H2 Early Period, Modern Developments
H4 Granular topics (use sparingly) 2020–2025, Key Controversies

Prose Style Guidelines

  • Write in third person (avoid "I," "we," "you")
  • Use present tense for established facts, past tense for historical events
  • Keep sentences under 30 words when possible
  • Define technical terms on first use
  • Use bold for the article title on first mention only
  • Link internal references on first significant mention
  • Avoid adverbs and intensifiers ("very," "extremely," "clearly")
  • Use numerals for numbers 10+, words for 1–9
💡

Readability Target

Aim for a Flesch Reading Ease score of 50–65 (roughly 10th–12th grade level). This balances accessibility with the ability to discuss complex topics. Our writing assistant tool provides real-time readability scoring.

🔍

Peer Review Process

How articles are evaluated and improved

Every article on Aevum passes through a multi-stage review process. Understanding this process helps contributors prepare their work for the smoothest possible evaluation.

Review Stages

1

Automated Pre-Screen

System

AI-powered analysis checks for citation coverage, readability metrics, potential bias markers, structural completeness, and plagiarism indicators. Articles must pass basic thresholds before human review.

2

Community Review

Community

Two or more experienced contributors independently review the article. They evaluate sourcing, neutrality, accuracy, completeness, and adherence to style guidelines. Reviewers leave detailed comments inline.

3

Editorial Board Review

Required for B+ Class

Articles rated B-Class or higher undergo review by the Editorial Board — domain experts in the article's subject area. They verify source quality, check for factual accuracy, and ensure the article meets quality tier standards.

Reviewer Best Practices

✅ Good Review Feedback
  • "This claim at line 45 needs a citation to support it"
  • "Consider adding context about [X] in the Background section"
  • "The tone in paragraph 3 reads as promotional"
  • "This source [link] is a tertiary source; consider finding a primary one"
❌ Unhelpful Feedback
  • "This is poorly written"
  • "I don't agree with this section"
  • "Needs work"
  • "Wrong" (without explanation or source)
🤝

Collaboration & Community

Working together effectively

Aevum Encyclopedia is a collaborative project. Even the best individual writers benefit from community feedback, and the most accurate articles emerge from diverse perspectives.

Discussion Page Etiquette

  • Always sign and timestamp your comments
  • Address the content, not the person
  • Assume good faith in disagreements
  • Provide sources for your position
  • Be specific about what changes you propose
  • Respect the "no edit warring" policy (max 3 revert cycles)
  • Seek mediation from neutral editors when stuck
  • Thank contributors for their work

Handling Disagreements

1

Discuss Before Editing

Required

If you disagree with existing content, raise the issue on the article's discussion page first. Make your case with sources and specific proposed changes. This prevents edit conflicts and builds consensus.

2

Escalate Appropriately

Recommended
\n

If consensus cannot be reached on the discussion page, request formal review from the Editorial Board. Do not engage in repeated unilateral edits to impose your preferred version.

ℹ️

Community Health Metric

Contributors with high collaboration scores — measured by constructive discussions, successful collaborations, and helpful reviews — gain "Trusted Contributor" status with additional privileges including expedited review.

❓

Frequently Asked Questions

Common questions from new and experienced contributors

Yes, but with strict conflict-of-interest disclosures. You must declare your affiliation in your contributor profile and on the article's discussion page. Articles about your own work require independent, third-party sources as primary citations. The Editorial Board will scrutinize these articles more closely.
First, try the Wayback Machine or Internet Archive to find a cached copy. If the source is permanently unavailable, replace it with an alternative reliable source that supports the same claim. If no alternative exists, flag the claim for review using the "needs source" template and consider removing the unsourced claim.
A topic is notable if it has received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. This means multiple quality sources have written about the topic in substantial detail, not just passing mentions. For individuals, this typically means sustained public recognition in their field. When in doubt, merge the content into a broader article.
We recommend a minimum annual review for all articles. Topics in rapidly evolving fields (technology, medicine, current events) should be reviewed quarterly. Set up alerts for your articles using the Aevum dashboard, and check for new significant sources or developments at least once per review cycle.
Yes! Translation is one of the most valuable contributions to Aevum. You can translate any article, but the translation must be reviewed by a native speaker. Use our translation toolkit which preserves citations and formatting. Translated articles are tagged with both the original language and the translation language.
Mistakes are normal and expected. If you discover an error, correct it immediately and document the change in the article's history. Our review process catches most errors before they reach readers. No contributor is penalized for honest mistakes — what matters is responsiveness to correction and continuous improvement.