Editorial policy
A dilemma is written to be genuinely two-sided — no manufactured conflict, no option quietly written as the wise one. This page is how we hold ourselves to that, and what happens if we get it wrong.
Where things stand right now
26 dilemmas have completed review and are published. 24 more are written and waiting on a reviewer who is not their author — the one thing that has to be true before anything ships. This number updates automatically as content is published; it is not hand-maintained.
Roles
One person may fill more than one of these initially, with a single firm rule: every public dilemma requires at least one reviewer who is not its author.
- Author
- Drafts the value page or dilemma.
- Research reviewer
- Checks factual and theoretical grounding.
- Cultural reviewer
- Flags assumptions, stereotypes, exclusions, and regional misreadings.
- Facilitation reviewer
- Checks discussion safety and usability.
- Accessibility editor
- Checks reading level, structure, labels, and alternative formats.
- Publisher
- Confirms all required fields and approvals.
The review checklist
Every dilemma is checked against all of the following before it ships:
- Is the conflict real rather than manufactured?
- Are multiple parties represented fairly?
- Are choices plausible and noncaricatured?
- Does the copy imply that one culture is advanced or backward?
- Does a demographic detail accidentally signal the "correct" answer?
- Are rights, law, safety, and power differences acknowledged where relevant?
- Are high-stakes claims sourced?
- Is the reading level appropriate?
- Can a user opt out safely?
- Are accessibility and print requirements met?
- Are sources and revision dates complete?
Corrections
- Every content page includes a correction link.
- Substantive corrections are logged publicly by date and summary.
- Silent changes are limited to spelling, punctuation, or formatting.
- A change to a dilemma's logic — its choices, its values, its perspectives — creates a new version rather than an edit in place, because a saved reflection in your journal references the exact version you answered.
Corrections log
-
· The reference your colleague didn't earn · version 1.0.0 → 1.1.0
The option “Agree, but be candid about the gaps” now names what it puts under strain. Before, it listed only what it protects, which made it read as the one option with no cost. The scenario and the wording of every option are unchanged.
Reflections saved against version 1.0.0 stay in your journal as they are. Answering the dilemma again saves a separate entry against version 1.1.0.
The correction inbox isn't live yet (see contact and corrections).