We are committed to creating a community where:
- Truth-seeking is valued over being right
- Learning is celebrated, including learning from mistakes
- Disagreement is productive, not destructive
- Everyone can participate regardless of background, experience, or viewpoint
- Epistemic humility is practiced, not just preached
This isn't just a code of conduct—it's a model of the epistemic culture we're trying to build for journalism and public discourse.
- ✅ Acknowledging uncertainty and limitations in your own knowledge
- ✅ Changing your mind publicly when evidence warrants it
- ✅ Asking genuine questions to understand, not to trap
- ✅ Steel-manning opposing viewpoints before critiquing them
- ✅ Distinguishing between "I don't understand this" and "This is wrong"
- ✅ Celebrating others when they update their beliefs
- ✅ Using clear, accessible language
- ✅ Providing context and sources for claims
- ✅ Showing your reasoning, not just conclusions
- ✅ Respecting others' cognitive load (structure, summaries, links)
- ✅ Assuming good faith until proven otherwise
- ✅ Using "I" statements ("I found X confusing" not "X is stupid")
- ✅ Welcoming newcomers and helping them orient
- ✅ Sharing credit generously
- ✅ Building on others' ideas while attributing them
- ✅ Offering constructive criticism
- ✅ Accepting feedback with grace
- ✅ Respecting different contribution styles (code, writing, research, testing, etc.)
- ✅ Using inclusive language
- ✅ Respecting preferred names and pronouns
- ✅ Making space for diverse perspectives
- ✅ Considering how policies affect marginalized groups
- ✅ Providing accessibility (alt text, transcripts, clear language)
- ✅ Recognizing that expertise comes in many forms
- ❌ Presenting opinions as facts without evidence
- ❌ Ignoring contradictory evidence without explanation
- ❌ Moving goalposts when proven wrong
- ❌ Cherry-picking data to support predetermined conclusions
- ❌ Using credentials to shut down discussion ("I have a PhD, so...")
- ❌ Demanding certainty where uncertainty is honest
- ❌ Personal attacks, insults, or demeaning language
- ❌ Trolling, intentional derailing, or bad-faith arguing
- ❌ Public or private harassment
- ❌ Doxxing or sharing private information without consent
- ❌ Sexual attention or advances (this is a professional space)
- ❌ Deliberately confusing or obfuscating to "win" arguments
- ❌ Taking credit for others' work
- ❌ Gatekeeping ("You're not a real X because...")
- ❌ Undermining others' contributions
- ❌ Refusing to engage with feedback
- ❌ Weaponizing the code of conduct to silence dissent
- ❌ Creating hostile environments for any group
- ❌ Discriminatory language or behavior based on:
- Age, body size, disability, ethnicity, gender identity/expression
- Experience level, education, socioeconomic status
- Nationality, personal appearance, race, religion
- Sexual identity or orientation
- ❌ Unwelcome sexual attention or imagery
- ❌ Deliberate misgendering or use of rejected names
- ❌ Excluding people based on any protected characteristic
This Code of Conduct applies:
- In project spaces (GitHub, GitLab, forums, chat)
- At events (conferences, workshops, meetups)
- When representing the project publicly
- In one-on-one interactions related to project work
It applies to everyone:
- Project maintainers
- Contributors (regular or occasional)
- Participants (learning, testing, using)
- Guests and visitors
Project maintainers are responsible for:
- Clarifying standards of acceptable behavior
- Taking appropriate and fair corrective action
- Removing, editing, or rejecting contributions that violate this Code
- Banning temporarily or permanently anyone whose behavior is inappropriate
If you experience or witness unacceptable behavior:
-
For immediate safety concerns: Contact local authorities first
-
For code violations:
- Email: [maintainers email - to be added]
- Include:
- Your contact information
- Names of people involved
- Your account of what happened
- Any supporting documentation (links, screenshots)
- Whether you want this to remain confidential
-
What happens next:
- We'll acknowledge receipt within 48 hours
- We'll investigate (talking to all parties)
- We'll decide on appropriate response
- We'll inform you of the outcome
- We'll protect your privacy
We follow graduated responses based on severity and pattern:
Behavior: Minor violation (unintentional, first time) Response: Private message explaining the issue Outcome: Apology and behavior change expected
Behavior: Moderate violation or repeated minor violations Response: Formal written warning Outcome: Clear expectations for future behavior
Behavior: Serious violation or pattern of problematic behavior Response: Temporary removal from community spaces (1-90 days) Outcome: Conditions for return clearly stated
Behavior: Severe violation, harassment, or repeated pattern Response: Permanent removal from all project spaces Outcome: No path to return
You may appeal an enforcement decision:
- Email maintainers within 14 days
- Explain why you believe the decision was incorrect
- Provide any relevant new information
- Maintainers will review and respond within 14 days
Disagreement is not a violation.
We distinguish between:
✅ Productive disagreement:
- "I interpret this evidence differently because..."
- "Have you considered this alternative explanation?"
- "I don't find that argument convincing, here's why..."
❌ Unproductive disagreement:
- "You're an idiot if you believe that"
- "Anyone who thinks X is morally bankrupt"
- "I'm not going to explain why you're wrong, educate yourself"
We want vigorous intellectual debate. We don't want personal attacks disguised as intellectual critique.
Part of our mission is making knowledge creation more equitable. This means:
- Lived experience is a form of expertise (though not the only form)
- Different epistemologies are valid (academic, journalistic, community-based, etc.)
- Power shapes knowledge (acknowledge whose perspectives are centered/marginalized)
- Access should be democratic (don't create barriers based on credentials or payment)
If someone says "X policy harms my community," don't demand they provide peer-reviewed studies. Listen, ask questions, and take seriously their expertise about their own experience.
This Code of Conduct is adapted from:
With additions specific to epistemic communities.
This Code of Conduct will evolve:
- Based on community feedback
- As we learn what works
- To address new situations
Version history in CHANGELOG.md.
Current version: 1.0 Last updated: 2025-11-23
If you're unsure whether something violates this Code:
- When in doubt, ask!
- Email maintainers for private guidance
- Open an issue for public discussion of edge cases
We'd rather you ask than worry in silence.
We are building a community that models the epistemic culture we want for journalism and public discourse:
- Where changing your mind is strength, not weakness
- Where "I don't know" is an acceptable answer
- Where disagreement leads to understanding, not division
- Where everyone can contribute, regardless of background
- Where truth-seeking matters more than being right
Thank you for helping us create this space.
See also: CONTRIBUTING.md, SECURITY.md, MAINTAINERS.md