Rules & Editorial Standards — Overview
Purpose of This Platform
Patriot University is a civic news aggregator, civil rights resource, and political accountability platform. We aggregate reporting from credible news organizations alongside court records and official documents; we publish opinion and analysis based on the news we cover; and we provide practical resources for civil rights, voting rights, and civic engagement.
Our content about people and their actions is educational and informative — not punitive. We document what public officials and public figures have done in their official capacities because an informed citizenry is the foundation of democratic self-governance.
We draw from court records, official government documents, congressional proceedings, and credible journalism — and we cite those sources so readers can verify our work independently.
We are building a public knowledge graph designed to serve independent journalists and to provide a factual foundation for any future truth-and-reconciliation effort aimed at holding public officials who promoted autocracy and authoritarianism accountable for their documented actions.
Evidence Tier System
Every factual claim published on Patriot University is classified into one of four evidence tiers. This system ensures readers always know the strength of the evidence behind what they are reading.
| Tier | What It Means | How We Label It |
|---|---|---|
| Documented | Primary sources: court records, indictments, verdicts, official congressional records, FEC filings, financial disclosures, signed executive orders | No special label — the source IS the evidence |
| Credibly Reported | Multi-outlet journalism with named sources, published by recognized news organizations (AP, Reuters, NYT, WaPo, WSJ, NPR, ProPublica, etc.) | No special label when corroborated by multiple outlets |
| Alleged | Single-source claim, anonymous sourcing, or not yet independently confirmed | Prefixed with “Allegedly” or “According to [single source]” |
| Excluded | Unsourced assertions, AI inference, anonymous blog posts, opposition-research databases without independent verification | Never appears in published content |
Prohibited Sources
Some sources are categorically excluded from our evidence base. If a claim can only be supported by an excluded source, it does not appear in our content. Specifically:
- One6Project and similar opposition-research databases are excluded sources. We never cite them as evidence for any claim. If a person was originally included in our knowledge base solely based on One6Project data, their profile has either been substantiated with independent sources or removed.
- Unsourced social media posts, anonymous blog entries, and AI-generated analysis without primary source backing are never treated as evidence.
Speech Is Protected
This is a standing editorial principle across all of our content:
- We document what people did (actions, decisions, votes, financial transactions, official conduct) separately from what they said.
- We never characterize speech alone as criminal conduct unless a court or official body has made that specific finding.
- It is accurate and appropriate to note that speech indicates sympathy, coordination, or support for persons engaged in documented activities — but we state this precisely, not as participation in an underlying offense.
- When speech is legally actionable (e.g., defamation, fraud, solicitation, incitement as legally defined), we cite the specific legal finding or lawsuit.
First Amendment protection extends to speech we may find objectionable. Opinion journalism — even deliberately misleading opinion journalism — does not rise to the level of documented misconduct without additional non-speech conduct.
Our accountability work is built on what people did — not what they said. Any accountability for authoritarian or autocratic conduct must be grounded in documented actions, not protected speech. This principle is not a courtesy to officials we disagree with; it is the standard that makes our knowledge graph credible as a resource for independent journalists and for future truth-and-reconciliation processes.
How We Use AI
Patriot University uses AI tools (including Claude by Anthropic) in its editorial workflow. Here is how:
- Research assistance: AI helps locate, organize, and cross-reference public records, court filings, and news sources.
- Draft generation: AI assists in drafting content, which is then reviewed and verified by a human editor.
- Analysis frameworks: AI helps apply our analytical frameworks (democratic health indicators, authoritarian marker detection, corruption pattern analysis) consistently across content.
AI-generated analysis is never treated as “documented” evidence. When data has been inferred, estimated, or AI-generated rather than sourced from authoritative records, it carries a visible provenance indicator.
A human editor reviews and approves all published content. Some content is auto-published by the pipeline and reviewed afterward — see our Editorial Review Process for details.
Related Documentation
- Accountability Profiles — Standards FAQ — Detailed FAQ on who gets an accountability profile and why
- Corrections & Transparency Policy — How to submit corrections and our transparency commitments
- Editorial Review & Publishing Process — How content moves from draft to publication
- Legal Framework and First Amendment Protections — Full legal architecture: gates, scoring criteria, skills, and First Amendment defenses
Factual correction requests: If you believe any information on Patriot University is incorrect, please contact factcheck@patriot.university with the specific claim and any supporting documentation. We review all submissions and correct verified errors promptly.