Editorial Standards
Conspirafy is pro-evidence, not "both sides." Here is exactly how we examine conspiracy theories.
Methodology
Every theory on Conspirafy goes through the same process:
- Steelman the claim. We present the theory in its strongest possible form, in believers' own framing. No strawmanning, no mockery.
- Explain the appeal. Why do people believe this? What psychological, cultural, or historical factors make it compelling?
- Catalog the evidence. Every piece of evidence cited by proponents is listed, along with its source and credibility rating.
- Test against counter-evidence. We apply the strongest available debunking evidence — scientific studies, official documents, expert analysis, logical reasoning.
- Identify fallacies and red flags. We note which logical fallacies and structural red flags are present in the theory's reasoning.
- Deliver a verdict. Based on the weight of evidence, each theory receives a clear verdict.
Verdict Criteria
- Confirmed: Proven true by declassified documents, court proceedings, or official acknowledgment. Multiple independent sources corroborate.
- Partially True: Contains a verifiable kernel of truth, but the broader claims overstate the evidence or draw unsupported conclusions.
- Unsubstantiated: Insufficient evidence to confirm or deny. The theory is plausible but unproven, or the available evidence is ambiguous.
- Debunked: Conclusively disproven by scientific evidence, documentation, logical analysis, or a combination. The core claim does not hold up under scrutiny.
- Ongoing Investigation: Active investigations underway, significant new evidence recently emerged, or official inquiries in progress.
Source Rating Rubric
Every source cited in a theory is rated for credibility:
| Rating | Criteria | Examples |
|---|---|---|
| High | Peer-reviewed, official records, established institutions | Nature, PNAS, court documents, declassified CIA files, GAO reports |
| Medium | Reputable journalism, credentialed authors, well-sourced investigations | NYT, Guardian, BBC, academic books with citations |
| Low | Unverified claims, anonymous sources, known misinformation outlets | Unsourced blogs, anonymous YouTube channels, tabloids |
| Unknown | Credibility cannot be readily determined | Personal websites, obscure publications, first-hand accounts without corroboration |
Fact-Check Freshness
Every theory displays a "Last fact-checked" date. We aim to review each theory at least once every 180 days. When new evidence emerges, we update the theory and its verdict promptly. All changes are logged in our public corrections record.
Corrections Policy
We make mistakes. When we do, we correct them transparently:
- Corrections are published on our corrections page with the date, what changed, and why.
- The original theory page is updated with the corrected information.
- Material corrections that change a verdict are flagged prominently on the theory page.
- Anyone can request a correction via the button on any theory page or by emailing hello@conspirafy.com.
Independence
Conspirafy has no corporate sponsors, no advertisers, and no institutional affiliations. Our verdicts are not influenced by any government, organization, or financial interest. We reserve the right to decline coverage based on our exclusion policy, but we never alter a verdict under external pressure. Full funding details are published at /funding.
Editorial process
Every theory passes through five stages before publication:
- Research. A researcher collects primary sources, secondary journalism, official records, and counter-evidence. Minimum 10 sources.
- Drafting. The theory page is written with an explicit steelman, appeal analysis, evidence catalog, fallacy identification, and verdict.
- Internal review. A second editor checks source attributions, logical consistency, and the verdict threshold. Disagreements are escalated.
- Publication. The page goes live with a Last fact-checked date and a Next review due date. Verdicts are not changed post-publication without a logged reason.
- Updates.Theories are re-reviewed on or before their review date, or immediately when significant new primary evidence emerges. Changes are logged in the theory's update log and, for material verdict changes, on /corrections.
Conflict of interest policy
Editors disclose any personal, financial, or ideological relationship with the subject of a theory before beginning research. Editors with a material conflict do not draft, edit, or approve the affected theory. Bylines are published at /editors. If you believe a published verdict reflects an undisclosed bias, please file a correction request.
Update-log mechanism
Each theory page maintains a timestamped update log visible to readers. Every entry records what changed (e.g. “added 2023 Senate testimony to evidence list”) and the editor responsible. Verdict changes also appear in the public /corrections log. Readers can therefore trace the full editorial history of any verdict.
How to request a correction
Use the Suggest a correction button on any theory page. Provide as much detail as possible and, ideally, a supporting source URL. You may also email hello@conspirafy.com. Requests are reviewed within 5 business days. Accepted corrections are published at /corrections with a resolution summary. Declined requests receive a brief editorial explanation. We do not suppress correction requests, even unflattering ones.
See also: Methodology · Funding · Editors · Exclusion Policy · Corrections log