Policy · sourcing, accuracy, corrections

Editorial standards

These are the rules this site holds itself to. They exist because reference material is only worth reading if you can tell how it was made — what it sources, how it quotes, how it handles disagreement, and what happens when it gets something wrong. All of it is publicly stated here so you can hold the site to it.

PhilosophyMeaning grounds claims in peer-reviewed scholarly reference works, keeps direct quotations short and attributed to their actual author, presents each position as its own defenders would state it, marks genuine uncertainty rather than resolving it artificially, treats sensitive topics with care, and corrects errors promptly when they are found or reported.

The positions · at a glance
The five standards
Position 01

Sourcing

Peer-reviewed references

Substantive claims are grounded in standard scholarly works — chiefly the Stanford and Internet Encyclopedias of Philosophy — listed on each page. Nothing is invented, and unverified claims are marked as such.

Position 02

Quotation

Short and correctly attributed

Direct quotations are kept brief and credited to the person who actually said them. Paraphrases are labelled as paraphrases. Widely misattributed lines are corrected rather than repeated. Where a highlighted line is credited in the form Name, Work, it is a quotation from that work. Where it is credited descriptively — “Popper’s central point”, “in summary”, “in one line” — it is this site’s compression of a position rather than words the thinker wrote.

Position 03

Evenhandedness

Steel-man, don't straw-man

Each position is stated as its strongest defenders would state it. Where a question is unsettled, the page says so instead of manufacturing a conclusion.

Position 04

Care

Sensitive topics

Pages touching death, suffering, meaning, or wellbeing are written with care, avoid overclaiming, and point toward proper support. Nothing here is advice or a substitute for a professional.

A reference site earns trust the same way a philosopher does: by showing its work. These standards are not decoration — they are the constraints every page on this site is written under, and stating them publicly is what makes them checkable.

01Sourcing and accuracy.

Substantive claims are grounded in established scholarly reference works, principally the peer-reviewed Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, alongside primary texts. Those sources are listed on the page itself, not buried, so any claim can be traced. Facts are never invented to fill a gap: where something cannot be verified, the page either omits it or marks it explicitly as uncertain. Dates and doctrinal summaries follow conventional scholarship, and where scholars genuinely disagree, that disagreement is reported rather than flattened.

02Quotation and attribution.

Direct quotations are kept short and are attributed to the person who actually said them. This matters more than it sounds: philosophy is full of lines confidently credited to the wrong person, and repeating them is how misinformation calcifies. Where a famous formulation is really a later paraphrase or a translator's phrasing, the page says so. Where an idea is summarised rather than quoted, it is presented as a summary, not dressed up in quotation marks.

Showing the work is what separates a reference from an opinion.Why these standards are public

03Evenhandedness and disagreement.

Most questions in philosophy are open, and a reference site that hides that is lying by omission. The policy here is to state each position as its own strongest defenders would state it — the steel-man, not the straw-man — and to let readers weigh them. Pages do not advocate a conclusion on contested questions, and where the site's own framing involves a judgement call, it is flagged rather than presented as neutral fact.

04Sensitive topics and limits.

Several subjects here — death, grief, immortality, meaninglessness, suffering — are philosophical questions that are also, for many readers, personal ones. Those pages are written with care: no overclaiming, no glib resolutions, and clear signposting toward proper support where it may be needed. Nothing on this site is medical, psychological, legal, or financial advice, and none of it substitutes for a qualified professional or someone who knows you.

05Corrections and updates.

Errors get fixed rather than defended. If you find a misattributed quotation, an incorrect date, a position stated unfairly, or a broken claim, report it and it will be corrected. A dedicated corrections contact is being set up and will be published here. Reported errors are checked against the cited encyclopedia entries and corrected, with the page updated rather than silently changed. Pages are reviewed periodically and revised as understanding improves or scholarship changes; substantive corrections are made openly rather than silently.

06Independence and disclosure.

This site is independently produced. It currently runs no advertising, no sponsored content, and no affiliate links; if that ever changes, it will be disclosed on this page before it appears. Content is produced with AI assistance under human editorial direction, and every external citation is verified against the publisher’s own index before it ships. Analytics are used to understand which ideas readers find useful, and are only enabled with your consent — nothing is stored unless you agree.

People also askQuick answers

What sources does PhilosophyMeaning use?

Principally the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy — both peer-reviewed and freely accessible — alongside primary texts. Sources are listed on each page so any claim can be traced back and checked.

How does the site handle quotations?

Direct quotations are kept short and attributed to the person who actually said them. Paraphrases are labelled as such, and widely misattributed lines are corrected rather than repeated — a common failure in philosophy content online.

Does the site take sides on contested questions?

No. Each position is presented as its strongest defenders would state it, and genuinely open questions are reported as open. Where the site's framing involves a judgement call, that is flagged rather than presented as neutral fact.

How are errors corrected?

Errors are fixed when found or reported, rather than defended. Pages are reviewed periodically and revised as scholarship changes, and substantive corrections are made openly.

Is anything on this site advice?

No. Pages discussing death, meaning, suffering, or wellbeing present philosophical ideas and arguments only. Nothing here is medical, psychological, legal, or financial advice, or a substitute for a qualified professional.

Sources & further reading

These standards are publicly stated so readers can hold the site to them. This site is an independent synthesis of scholarly reference works, not original research, and not advice.