Editorial standards
Quality rubric & live scorecard
"Journalistic quality with academic research practices", made measurable. Every published article is scored deterministically from the catalog against the rubric below — baseline guarantees PW makes, plus depth signals drawn from academic research practice. This page is the standard made auditable, not asserted; the same catalog always yields the same scores. Machine-readable at /wiki/editorial-standards.json.
A high mean (or 100% pass) means every article clears the conservative baseline bar and meets the depth floors — not that articles are maximally deep. The editorial-recency signal is time-relative (it counts reviews within the trailing window as of 2026-07-09) and will decay as the catalog ages without re-review; see the living-review currency report.
Mean score by article type
instruments
100%
45 articles
topics
100%
23 articles
concepts
100%
32 articles
benchmarks
100%
10 articles
The rubric — catalog-wide pass rates
baseline = a guarantee PW makes (should pass for nearly every article). depth = an academic-practice signal that varies and surfaces where a piece is thin.
- baselineOpens with a substantive lede100%
- baselineAnchored to a primary source100%
- baselineDrafting provenance disclosed (charter §7.9)100%
- depthHas an academic evidence base100%
- depthEvidence base spans ≥2 source types (not single-type / critique-only)100%
- depthEditorially reviewed within 365 days100%
- depthConsensus/contestation assessed (and locus named if contested)100%
Where the gaps are
The lowest-scoring published articles, worst first — each with the specific criteria it fails. This is the editorial work queue, surfaced honestly.
Every article passes every criterion.
The rubric is intentionally conservative: a failed depth criterion marks an article as not-yet-upgraded, not wrong. Scores are derived from typed catalog fields (no LLM, no judgement call) so they are reproducible and contestable. Under charter §7.9 AI-assisted prose may close some of these gaps under named-editor review, with every claim still citing a primary source.