TruthOrBluff publishes encyclopedia-style explanations of every topic on the site. This page describes how that content is written, how factual claims are checked, and what the source-review badge on each article means.
How content is written
Each topic has up to four articles, one per reading level (Rookie ages 8+, Curious 12+, Sharp 16+, Expert 18+). Articles follow a strict editorial style guide that mandates US English, encyclopedic tone, and citation of authoritative sources in the article frontmatter. Every numerical claim, named law or limit, attribution, and date is meant to be verifiable against the cited sources.
What the badge means
When you see a badge like "Source review · 14 confirmed · 1 disputed · 0 uncertain across 17 claims" at the top of an article, here is what each piece means:
- Claims. A claim is one verbatim sentence from the article body that contains at least one specific factual assertion: a year, a quantity, a named law or theorem, or an attribution to a person or institution. The total count is automatic; the script flags every sentence that triggers any of these patterns.
- Confirmed. At least one authoritative source supports the specific assertion in the sentence.
- Disputed. One or more authoritative sources contradict the sentence or disagree in a way the sentence does not explain.
- Uncertain. The available evidence does not verify the specific assertion. The claim is not necessarily wrong, but it requires more work.
- Last reviewed. The most recent date on which source evidence for the article was written or updated.
How source verification works
Each check starts with the article's verbatim claims and cited source URLs. Every verdict must reference an authoritative source URL that supports the complete claim. Preferred source order:
- Peer-reviewed paper or pre-print on arXiv or a journal site.
- Official institution page (NASA, ESA, CERN, NIST, NIH, USGS, an observatory, a university physics department).
- Reference encyclopedia entry whose cited primary references have been checked.
- Britannica.
- Museum or government statistical agency.
If a primary source cannot be found, the verdict is "uncertain" rather than "confirmed". Each stored result includes an anonymous review-run ID, the date, the verdict, the source URL, a content hash, and a short evidence note. The content hash prevents a verdict for older wording from being attached to a changed claim.
Honest limits
A source-review badge is evidence of a documented check, not a guarantee of correctness. Specifically:
- A "confirmed" verdict means a primary source supports the specific assertion, not that the assertion has been peer-reviewed in the academic sense.
- Frontier scientific topics (recent supernova mass measurements, current limits on physical constants, Population III star properties) are areas where even authoritative sources disagree. Articles in those areas may carry "disputed" verdicts that reflect genuine ongoing scientific debate rather than article errors.
- Specialist review is not guaranteed for every topic. Reports from readers and subject experts remain important.
Editorial standards
Beyond fact-checking, every article must pass a written-content audit covering concise prose, US English spelling and punctuation, US-customary units with metric in parentheses for everyday measurements, and a curated list of overused phrases. The audit is run before publication.
Reporting an error
If you find a wrong fact in an article, please report it through the feedback link in the site footer. Errors are corrected promptly, and the affected article's review record is invalidated for the changed sentences so reviewers will re-verify on the next pass.