An encyclopedia that shows its work

Search a topic and read an article that names its sources, says who reviewed it and when, and admits what is still unsettled. If it is not here, you can ask for it.

Deliberately small

This corpus is short and will grow slowly. Two hundred reviewed, cited articles beat twenty thousand generated ones — for readers, and for the domain: Google’s spam policy names scaled unreviewed AI content directly, and an encyclopedia written by an agent is precisely the shape that policy describes. Growing by approval rather than by generation is the whole strategy.

The questions Wikipedia does not answer

There is no point competing for "what is photosynthesis" — Wikipedia has it, and it is better than ours would be. The gap worth filling is the comparative and causal question: how does this compare to that, why does this happen, what is the difference between two things people conflate.

Nothing publishes unreviewed

A draft cannot approve itself. It waits with its sources, its confidence and its moderation verdict until a person reads it, and until then it is kept out of search and says so on its own page.

Duplicates are prevented, not cleaned up

Before anything is written, the request is embedded and compared against the corpus. If it is close enough to an existing article, you are shown that article and offered the chance to improve a section of it rather than starting a near-copy. The similarity floor is measured rather than guessed.

Questions

Is reading free?

Yes, always, with no account. A membership is for asking for an article that does not exist yet, because that is the part that costs a research loop and a reviewer’s attention.

Who writes these?

The ones here now were written by a person. Requested ones are drafted with AI against real sources, checked, and reviewed by a person before anybody reads them — and every article says which it is.