Methodology and corrections

An entry is an informed way into a subject

Atlas entries offer enough orientation and narrative to make an organization, person, idea, or work understandable, then open paths for deeper study. They are not final verdicts. Each entry selects and connects evidence into a synthesis: an account of what matters, how the parts fit together, and which tensions remain unresolved.

For organizational intelligence, this method is an editorial discipline for reading and revising the collection, not a claim about the historical subjects it describes.

That selection makes the editorial method important. Entries begin with the subject's animating question, establish the relevant period and participants, and follow changes in authority, information, work, and consequence. Sources should appear near the claims they support. Official accounts should be read alongside practice, disagreement, and the experience of people affected by the organization. Benefits and burdens belong inside the story rather than in a separate moral footnote.

Read the kind of claim, not only its confidence

A documented fact, an attributed interpretation, an atlas synthesis, and a present-day comparison do different work. The prose should make those differences visible. A resemblance between two organizations is not evidence that one influenced the other, and a possible lesson for Workloop is not a historical conclusion.

Two labels describe the maturity of each page. Research status shows where the entry is in its development, from a seed or stub through working, reviewed, and stable. Evidence state describes the relationship between the prose and its support:

• Unverified synthesis is a coherent starting account whose consequential claims and relationships still need claim-level checking.
• Bibliographic seed introduces a work or reading path before exact-edition close reading is complete.
• Source-anchored means identified sources support the main account, though every material claim may not yet have an exact locator.
• Claim-cited means material claims are connected to nearby citations or source locators.
• Reviewed means the entry has received evidence and editorial review.
• Editorial lens names a way of examining the material, not a historical finding.
• Workloop intent states Workloop's present purpose or position rather than making a historical claim.
• Workloop hypothesis is a possible contemporary translation that still needs testing against observed results and failure modes.

These labels describe different kinds and stages of knowledge; they are not scores of a subject's importance. A reviewed entry can still be corrected, and an unfinished entry can still offer well-supported claims.

Unknown should remain unknown

Missing evidence is recorded as a research gap, not silently converted into certainty. Conflicting sources may support more than one interpretation. In those cases, the disagreement belongs in the entry with enough attribution for the reader to understand what is contested.

The same rule applies to organizational consequence. An absent impact record means “not assessed,” never “no impact.” The benefit-for-all-life lens follows effects on workers, communities, nonhuman life, ecosystems, and future generations.

Coverage should also remain open to correction. Missing traditions, participants, organizational forms, geographies, source positions, and affected lives are research gaps. Adding entries does not by itself resolve them; periodic review should ask whether new subjects change the atlas's concepts and whose sources are treated as authoritative, as well as its count.

Report a correction

Send corrections to hello@getworkloop.com. Include the entry URL, the passage that appears wrong or incomplete, and the source or firsthand basis for the correction. If attribution matters, say how the contribution should be credited.

Factual errors, broken sources, mistaken attribution, missing context, and materially absent perspectives are all useful corrections. Straightforward errors should be fixed directly. When good evidence supports a substantive disagreement, the entry should represent the disagreement rather than force a false consensus. Claims that cannot carry the weight placed on them should be qualified or removed.