Editing Raleighpedia:Editorial principles

{{Raleighpedia policy}}

== Editorial principles ==

This page outlines the core editorial principles that govern content on Raleighpedia. These principles apply to all articles, regardless of topic, format, or contributor.

Raleighpedia is a civic documentation project. Its purpose is to record, organize, and make accessible the public history of Raleigh’s governance, policies, and institutions.

== Neutrality and tone ==
Articles must be written in a neutral, descriptive tone.

Raleighpedia does not advocate for particular policies, outcomes, or viewpoints. Articles should document what occurred, when it occurred, and what decisions were made, using the language of the public record wherever possible.

Avoid:
* persuasive or argumentative language;
* evaluative judgments (e.g., “successful,” “failed,” “controversial”) unless directly attributed to a cited source;
* narrative framing that implies intent or consequence not stated in the record.

Acceptable:
* factual descriptions of votes, actions, and adopted policies;
* attributed statements drawn from meeting minutes or official documents;
* clear summaries of documented disagreements without taking sides.

== Verifiability ==
All substantive claims must be supported by reliable sources.

Preferred sources include:
* City Council minutes and agendas;
* adopted ordinances, resolutions, and policies;
* official City memoranda and reports;
* election records from official agencies;
* primary planning and budget documents.

If a statement cannot be supported by a reliable source, it should not appear in an article.

== No original research ==
Raleighpedia does not publish original research, analysis, or synthesis.

Editors should not:
* infer motivations or intent beyond what is documented;
* draw conclusions by combining multiple sources in ways not explicitly stated;
* speculate about outcomes, impacts, or significance.

Articles may summarize and organize existing records but should not reinterpret them.

== Primary sources and context ==
Raleighpedia relies heavily on primary sources. When using primary materials:

* summarize rather than quote extensively;
* avoid selective quotation that alters meaning;
* provide sufficient context to understand decisions and actions.

Editors should avoid using primary sources to advance novel interpretations.

== Attribution and precision ==
When describing actions or statements, be precise about who acted and in what capacity.

Use:
* “City Council voted…” rather than “the City decided…”
* “Council Member X stated…” rather than generalized attribution.

Avoid vague constructions such as “it was decided” or “the City felt.”

== Chronology over narrative ==
Articles should favor chronological structure over thematic or narrative storytelling.

Events should be presented in sequence, with dates and actions clearly stated. Interpretive summaries should be minimal and grounded in cited facts.

== People and restraint ==
Content about individuals should focus on their official actions and roles as they relate to civic outcomes.

Avoid:
* personal background unrelated to City actions;
* character assessments;
* speculation about beliefs or motivations.

This principle is especially important for living individuals.

== Use of AI-assisted content ==
AI tools may be used to assist with drafting and summarization, but editors retain full responsibility for accuracy, sourcing, and tone.

AI-generated text must be reviewed and edited to conform to Raleighpedia’s standards. AI tools should not be treated as sources or authorities.

Editors may consult Wikipedia’s guidance, including [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:Signs of AI writing]], when reviewing AI-assisted text.

== Consistency and restraint ==
When faced with ambiguity, editors should err on the side of:
* fewer articles rather than more;
* consolidation rather than fragmentation;
* documentation rather than interpretation.

Raleighpedia values completeness over comprehensiveness.

== Enforcement and consensus ==
Editorial principles are enforced through discussion, reference to policy pages, and editorial judgment.

When disputes arise, editors should seek consensus by returning to:
* available sources,
* documented facts, and
* the purpose of Raleighpedia as a civic record.