Policy:Lists and Categories

List pages exist for anyone to contribute to the development and organization of articles, including collaborative thesis pages, and when appropriate, the personal thesis pages), and other lists pages and categories.

Titles for list pages should be broad enough to include more than one article

For example, Global warming may lead to a general article regarding the literature on global warming. As seen in this example, however, the encyclopedic entry will in turn contain links to specific viewpoints regarding the topic, for example "Global warming is mostly due to human activity" and alternatively, "Global warming is only modestly affected by human activity."

It is also appropriate for list pages to include a list of suggested articles that have not yet been completed. For example, the list "Theories regarding the causes of human consciousness" was created as a stub (starting point) including the five theories of consciousness outlined by Robert Kuhn. It exists as a starting point for the development of those five articles and other articles that may follow.

Appeal Process for Editorial Conflicts

If editors of the encyclopedic page cannot agree, one or more may initiate a request for an Editorial Intervention.

There are three levels of appeal. There will a small financial charge for seeking a judgment and for each level of appeals. A judgment or appeal that determines there has been disruptive behavior may result in the blocking of the disruptive party.

At the first level, of a SearchForTruth Editorial Intervention, the "plaintiff" will seek the binding intervention and judgment of a SearchForTruth staff member acting as the "judge." The judge will seek to mediate an agreement that best fits policy, or may dictate a solution if mediation fails.

If the judgment is not satisfactory to any party, that judgment may be appealed to the Appeal Board, where a team of staff members will review the case and policy and either confirm or change the prior decision.

If the Appeal Board decision is still not satisfactory, and most especially if the plaintiff or respondents believe a core policy must be modified to better achieve the goals of SearchForTruth, a final level of appeal can be raised to Entire Managing Board of SearchForTruth. The Board will review the case and policy in an effort to clarify future policy regarding judgments on the specific case in question and similar controversies in the future.

Unlike Wikipedia interventions, which are theoretically undertaken and enforced by volunteers who may or may not have their own biases, the SearchForTruth appeal process requires the staff and management to take direct responsibility for fairly settling controversies and for clarifying policies in a manner that reduces the risk of controversy and edit warring.