Editorial standards
Methodology
Failurepedia separates facts, reported explanations, analysis, and disputed points so readers can see how each conclusion was reached — and where the evidence is thin.
How cases are selected
The first release focuses on technology and business failures that are well documented and low in active dispute — discontinued products, failed launches, and shut-down companies. Cases involving live criminal proceedings, fraud allegations against named individuals, or unresolved litigation are deferred until a stronger legal and sourcing process is in place.
Evidence first: claims are the unit
Claims are the canonical evidence unit. Narrative sections, Failure Anatomy nodes, factors, and warning signs reference claim IDs rather than carrying their own parallel source lists. Every numbered citation in a case links to the specific claim it rests on, and each claim links to its sources.
How sources are evaluated
Sources are ranked by type: primary documents (filings, official announcements, campaign pages) and direct statements carry the most weight, followed by credible reporting and secondary analysis. Unsourced listicles and unattributed summaries are treated as weak and are not used to support strong claims.
Root causes versus symptoms
Every contributing factor is classified by its role — root cause, contributing factor, immediate trigger, or visible symptom. Running out of cash, for example, is usually a trigger or a symptom, not a root cause. Separating these prevents the common mistake of naming the last domino as the reason a chain fell.
How confidence levels work
High confidence requires a primary document or multiple independent credible sources. Moderate reflects credible reporting with incomplete internal evidence. Low is used for limited documentation, conflicting accounts, or interpretation-heavy analysis. Low-confidence claims are visibly qualified and are never used as the basis for strong conclusions.
How scores are assigned
The first release deliberately avoids numeric scores. Instead it uses qualitative labels — preventability, collapse speed, primary failure layer, and lesson transferability. Numeric scoring will only be introduced once published rubrics exist, because arbitrary numbers erode trust faster than they inform.
How disputed points are represented
Where credible accounts genuinely conflict, the disagreement is described as a disputed point rather than resolved by fiat. Allegations are attributed to their sources, and disputed interpretations are not stated as fact.
How corrections are handled
Corrections are recorded visibly on the affected case and update its revision date, so a returning reader can see what changed and when. Every case carries a corrections history, even when it is empty. See the About & editorial standards page for how to request one.
Human review
Automated validation catches malformed content, unsupported vocabulary, missing image rights, and dangling references. It cannot judge whether an important claim was fairly sourced or a dispute honestly represented — that remains a human responsibility. Cases in this prototype are single-editor reviewed, and say so.