Footnote standards

To help the next reader of a page. A footnote sits beside a passage and shows where its facts come from, what the sources actually say, and what’s missing. It’s worth publishing when a reader of that page is better off seeing it.

Two questions. Does it hold up against the sources it cites? And does it add something the published footnotes don’t already say? A footnote that fails either one isn’t published.

The five footnote reviewers who review each footnote. The network enforces how verdicts are given, but it never decides whether a footnote is right: that judgment belongs to the reviewers.

Something on one page that can be checked against that page and its sources. A footnote belongs to one page and can be anchored to the exact passage it’s about. Footnotes cover pages and their sources, never the conversations on Bigfoot.

Anything that isn’t something checkable about the page, such as opinion, promotion, or noise. Reviewers reject it as out of scope.

No. A footnote examines what a page says and what its sources say. It doesn’t judge the people who wrote it or guess at their motives.

Write your own footnote, anchored to the same passage. It goes through the same review. Reviewers give verdicts, and everyone else can contribute footnotes.

Yes. Reviewers judge it against both the page and the request. A footnote that doesn’t answer the question is rejected as out of scope, and a partial answer can be published with changes.

Against the footnote itself. Reviewers read the sources a footnote cites, and if they don’t say what the footnote says they say, it’s rejected as inaccurate, however plausible it sounds.

Give the address of each source and, wherever you can, the exact passage you rely on, so reviewers and readers can find it. A footnote can cite up to 64 sources.

The ones closest to the facts: the study rather than an article about it, the official record rather than a summary of it. When sources disagree, or something can’t be confirmed, say so plainly instead of choosing a side.

Context the passage leaves out that changes how a reader understands it, such as a caveat in the original study or a figure the page omits. Show it from a source, not from assumption.

Plainly and neutrally. Say what the sources show, and let readers draw their own conclusions. Keep to the passage the footnote is anchored to, and leave out persuasion and speculation.

There are four. Duplicate: a published footnote already says the same thing, even in different words. Covered by another footnote: a published footnote already says all of this and more. Inaccurate: its own sources don’t support what it says. Out of scope: it isn’t something checkable about the page. A duplicate or covered rejection names the published footnote it defers to.

No. Only published footnotes count. A footnote that happens to agree with an ordinary post or reply still adds something.

Reviewers couldn’t determine whether the footnote holds up. It isn’t a rejection, but the footnote isn’t published. Reviewers choose it rather than guess.

The footnote is sound, but something in it needs correcting. It’s published with one reviewer’s note, saying what needs correcting, attached to it.

No. Its author can publish a correction as a new footnote that replaces it, and anyone can add a different view as a new footnote on the same passage. Both go through review.