How we choose sources
We begin with the person or organization responsible for the subject whenever that source is available. Direct announcements, maintained listings, authored documentation, and dated update posts usually provide the clearest basis for a factual statement. A useful source must be identifiable, reachable by the reader, and relevant to the question the page is answering.
Source choice depends on scope. A maintained listing can describe what is available now, while an authored post may explain intent, history, or a planned change. One should not be stretched to do the other's job. We ask what the source can reasonably establish, then keep the published sentence inside that boundary.
Secondary discussion can reveal a useful question or missing document, but repetition does not make it authoritative. We look for the original context behind paraphrases, cropped images, and unsourced quotations. If it cannot be found, the claim stays out.
How we preserve time and status
A statement belongs to the time in which it was published. We record publication or update dates when they are visible and note when our page was last checked. Dates let readers distinguish a current listing from an older announcement and decide whether a changeable detail deserves another look at the source.
Status words carry real weight. Available, announced, planned, considered, delayed, and removed describe different situations. We retain those distinctions instead of smoothing them into a more confident story. Conditional language stays conditional. A possibility does not become a promise, and an announcement does not become an available feature until the source says so.
For changeable details, we state when the observation was made and direct readers to the maintained destination. A dated note is a snapshot, not a permanent fact.
How we write summaries
Our pages summarize. They do not replace the original material. We read the surrounding passage, identify the smallest claim that answers the reader's question, and write it in fresh language. Links remain visible so anyone can inspect the source and decide whether our wording is fair.
A summary should be narrower than the material behind it. If a source reports an improvement, we do not rewrite that as a permanent cure. If it offers an example, we label it as an example. If it describes a broad process, we avoid filling in missing steps from habit or assumption. Precision often means saying less.
We avoid long quotation as a substitute for editing. Exact phrases remain only when their wording determines status or meaning; the explanation around them is our own.
How we handle uncertainty
A gap is allowed to remain a gap. If the available material cannot support a dependable answer, we narrow the page, mark the uncertainty, or leave the topic unpublished. We do not combine several weak hints into one strong claim. Specific-looking detail is especially risky when nobody can trace where it came from.
When dependable sources appear to disagree, we compare dates, scope, and wording. One may supersede the other, or they may answer different questions. We describe unresolved conflicts plainly.
We state what is known, what remains open, and where readers can check next. Boundaries appear where they clarify the answer, not at the end of every paragraph.
How corrections work
When stronger or newer information changes an answer, we revise it and refresh the checked date. Earlier dates remain when they matter to the claim's history.
A useful correction request includes the page address, disputed wording, direct source link, visible date, and a short explanation. We review the source in context and revise supported errors.
This Field Manual is unofficial, and its summaries remain open to revision. The standard is modest: make the basis of a statement easy to inspect, avoid confidence the source has not earned, and give readers a clear route to the current authoritative destination.
