Editorial standards

How IAQng handles sources, claims, and corrections.

IAQng is a SpaceBot project. These standards explain how the site should use outside work, describe SpaceBot's role, handle corrections, and avoid turning room-health context into claims it cannot support.

The short version

Make the source visible. Make the judgment visible. Do not overclaim.

The site exists to organize a field, not to launder marketing language into public-health authority. If a page names a person, standard, organization, tool, paper, or practice, a reader should be able to tell why it is there.

Rules

What IAQng should do.

  1. Disclose SpaceBot. IAQng is built and maintained by SpaceBot. It should not present itself as an independent institute.
  2. Prefer sources people can check. Use papers, standards, public agency pages, institution pages, project pages, and direct primary material when possible.
  3. Separate evidence from interpretation. When IAQng is making an editorial judgment, say it plainly instead of hiding it inside source language.
  4. Do not sell placement. Field Map, History, Hall of Fame, and source-list inclusion should not be paid placement.
  5. Do not imply endorsement. Being named on IAQng does not mean a person or organization supports SpaceBot, IAQng, or any product.
  6. Correct the record. If a source is weak, a claim is wrong, a contributor is missing, or language is unfair, the page should improve.
  7. Stay inside the claim boundary. Room context is not medical diagnosis, individual risk scoring, or engineering sign-off.

Corrections

Useful feedback is specific.

The best correction names the page, identifies the weak claim or missing source, and points to a better paper, standard, public page, archive, project page, or practical example.

General disagreement is welcome, but it is harder to act on. A better source, sharper wording, or clearer boundary is what improves the site.

Where this applies

The same standard belongs across the site.