Editing Philosophical Research:Ground rules (section)

== Goals ==

* Ontology pages are a creative exercise, not a strictly "factual" or "encyclopedic" one. They are allowed to contain hypothetical concepts and arguments that are not directly attested in any existing sources, but which are merely "predicted" to appear in a future existing source. However, each of these hypothetical concepts should make logical sense in reference to entries which {{em|do}} represent or cite existing sources. It should not be difficult for an outsider to figure out what an abstract entry refers to or where it came from based on only Ontology pages.
* Ontology pages are not owned by specific people. Changing the arguments on Ontology pages to better reflect what is factually true is acceptable and recommended, as long as you do not remove anything just because you do not understand it. If something is confusing, make the attempt to understand it first, and mention it on new versions of the page if it is relevant.
** For instance, violet propositions are not special. You are not prohibited from taking a proposition shown in violet and turning it brown if you have good evidence to believe that is a more appropriate categorization. However, if there is still good evidence that the proposition is partly violet, you should change its ideology code and icon to "MX onto PT", not "PT" — integrate existing information unless it is outdated or clearly falsifiable.
* Most Ontology pages should not feature images. This is mainly to promote Ontology pages being easy to download and store cheaply in text form. If an image is truly necessary for some reason, it should be one that is well-preserved somewhere else, such as a Wikimedia Commons image.
** Because this rule is for Ontology: pages, it does not apply to articles in the Research: namespace.
* Ontology pages are not prohibited from being "offensive". It is generally acceptable to cover propositions which would be offensive to any reasonable person as long as you do not endorse them.