ReferenceBase:Editorial standards
ReferenceBase entries are governed by the standards on this page. The test for any sentence in an entry is simple: it must be supported by a published source. The aim of every entry is the same: an accurate account of its subject, with sources weighed and presented in context.
Neutral point of view
Entries describe what a subject is and what it does. Superlatives and unsubstantiated characterizations are removed: "leading provider of" becomes "provides," and "innovative platform" becomes "platform." Self-awarded labels such as "pioneer" or "thought leader" are removed. Claims about quality, reputation, or competitive position require independent third-party sourcing. "Award-winning" appears only with a specific, named award cited.
Sourcing
Every factual claim in an entry carries a citation. ReferenceBase accepts a broad range of third-party sources, including trade press, regional publications, analyst reports, and industry directories, provided the source has identifiable editorial accountability. Anonymous or pseudonymous blogs, user-generated content sites, forums, social media posts from accounts other than the subject's own, and content farms are not accepted. ReferenceBase is not a primary source: if a claim has not been published anywhere, it does not appear in an entry.
Attribution
Independent third-party sources outrank first-party sources wherever both exist. First-party sources are acceptable for objective claims, handled in two tiers. Routine facts a reader would expect to come from the subject, such as founding year, locations, leadership names and titles, and products and services, are stated plainly. Other self-reported figures, such as employee counts, revenue, client numbers, and growth rates, carry explicit in-text attribution: "according to the company." Subjective claims cannot be sourced to the subject at all.
Conflicting sources
When credible sources disagree on a fact, the entry reports both versions with dates and attribution rather than silently choosing one.
Adverse information
Entries include material adverse information when it has been reported by at least two independent publications with editorial oversight, or by one such publication together with a primary regulatory, court, or other official record, and relates to the subject's operations, legal or regulatory standing, or leadership conduct, and had operational significance. Adverse information is integrated into the relevant section of the entry, never collected into a standalone "Controversies" section, and known resolutions are always included. Treatment is proportional: an entry reflects a subject's overall profile and does not magnify a single episode. Subjects may submit a response to adverse material covered in their entry; see ReferenceBase:Corrections and contact.
What entries do not include
Unsourceable claims, promotional language, implied endorsements such as "trusted by" without independent sourcing, and client or partner lists without sourcing and permission. If a subject wants a claim included that has no published source, the path is to publish it first through the subject's own official channels, after which it becomes citable under the attribution rules above.