Review guidelines

For contributors and reviewers.

When writing or reviewing an analysis post prior to publication, please bear in mind the following.

  1. Are the facts correct? Even details such as dates etc.
  2. Are the facts sourced (i.e. links given where statements are made)?
  3. Do the links go where they say they go?
  4. Objectivity: is a claim disputed? If so, has that been mentioned?
  5. Punctuation and grammar: is it ok?
  6. Where another source is analysed, has it been represented fairly? Are the quotes in context? Do they make clarifications anywhere else?
  7. Please save all new pages as “Draft” and have them reviewed by at least one reviewer (using these guidelines) before publication. If this is not possible, please make it clear that the post represents your views and not those of the site as a whole.

A note on disputed information: it’s ok not to mention disputes of fact or process from amateur blogs, justice4assange, rixstep, and other sites that display bias or widespread inaccuracy. But expert opinion should be reflected. For example: the Magistrates Court did say that the EAW, though legal, may be disproportionate. That should be mentioned in a detailed discussion (but it’s OK to just say in passing that it is legal and examined by 6 courts already).

Articles published under the “Viewpoint” menu should fall in line with site principles, and stick to the topics on the About page.  In other words, please do not express personal opinion on other topics, where there may not be site-wide consensus (such as FOI in general), unless it is made clear that it is the author’s viewpoint and does not represent the site.

Tweet-collections under the Assangista menu do not have to be reviewed; tweets must be verified before being used, and the tweets must be taken in context.

Spread the love of Julian Assange