Style guide · v3.0
How we write the Encyclopedia of Opinion.
We are an encyclopaedia of opinion: we map all relevant and important arguments about everything. This is the canonical style guide for content on the site. The full machine-readable source lives at STYLE_GUIDE.md.
Editorial principles
These four principles override every other rule in this document.
- Explain, don't judge. Describe every opinion sincerely, neutrally, and in value-free language. We document stances, we don't endorse them.
- Describe, don't prescribe. We record arguments held by large or important groups of people, even ones we think are invalid. The bar for inclusion is “is this argument made, by whom, where?” — not “is it correct?”.
- Accessible to all. Plain language always beats jargon. If a specialist term is unavoidable, gloss it on first use.
- Civility. No invective, no straw-manning, no contempt for the people who hold positions we personally disagree with.
Prose conventions
We follow the Guardian and Observer style guide as our prose baseline. House conventions:
- Sentence case for question, position, argument, and heading titles
- Single quotes; double quotes only inside other quotes
- No serial (Oxford) comma unless its absence creates ambiguity
- Numbers: spell out one–nine, numerals for 10+. Always numerals for percentages, years, measurements
- Dates: 12 March 2026
- No first person — the encyclopedia has no editorial voice of its own
Parts of a question
The three-tier addressable model:
- Question — any issue that generates discussion (
/c/<slug>) - Position — a stance taken on a question. Up to eight per question (
/p/<slug>) - Argument — a set of reasons supporting a position (
/a/<slug>) - Premises — single-sentence summaries marked
[P1],[P2],[C] - Counter-argument — a rebuttal that directly attacks the argument
- Proponents — public individuals or institutions who hold the argument
- In the Wild — examples of the argument being made elsewhere
- References — sources cited to back up the argument
Question types
Debates
Yes/no questions. Forms: Is X Y?, Does X Y?, Should X be Y?
- Is a trade war beneficial to the US?
- Does God exist?
- Should marijuana be legal?
Explainers
Questions that map the landscape of opinion. Positions need not oppose; together they paint a landscape.
- What were the causes of the English Civil War?
- What do Democrats believe?
- Which diets have been proven to work?
Perspectives
Mutually-exclusive viewpoints on an issue.
- Who is the greatest footballer of all time?
- Who is Greta Thunberg?
- What is the best political system?
Positions on debate questions
Debate questions admit five canonical stances. Use as many as apply. Example: Does God exist?
| Stance | Meaning | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Affirmative | Yes. | Yes, God does exist. |
| Negative | No. | No, God does not exist. |
| Indeterminate | We cannot know. | We cannot know whether God exists. |
| Conditional | Yes / no, but only under a specific reframing. | If God is a 'higher power' rather than a man with a beard, then yes. |
| Irrelevant | The question is meaningless. | The question is meaningless because we live in a simulation. |
The position–argument grammar
You should be able to say POSITION because ARGUMENT out loud and have it make sense.
Position: Pelé is the greatest footballer of all time.
Argument: Pelé won two World Cups and has not failed a score in the last two years.
Premises
Premises are the fundamental ideas on which the argument rests. They appear on individual lines in the order the reader needs them, marked [P1], [P2], ending with [C] for the conclusion. A reader should understand both the main points and the thought process simply by reading the premises.
[P1] World Cup wins are the ultimate arbiter of footballing talent.
[P2] Pelé has won more World Cups than any other footballer.
[C] Therefore, Pelé is the greatest footballer of all time.
Counter-premises dispute specific premises, marked [Rejecting P1], etc. Not every premise needs a counter-premise — only the ones at which the argument and counter-argument diverge.
Proponents
Proponents are public individuals or institutions that hold or have advanced the argument.
- High-profile public individuals
- Academics or individuals with relevant expertise
- Politicians
- Institutions or advocacy groups with relevant stances
Anonymous social media users, private individuals, and most journalists are not proponents — their work belongs in In the Wild. The exception is op-ed writers whose opinion writing is itself a publicly-held position.
Each argument should have at least one proponent; two or three is ideal. Proponent images must be copyright-cleared for reuse on the encyclopedia.
In the Wild and References
In the Wild is a link library of examples of the argument being made elsewhere — web, radio, print, TV. Mainstream public sources only.
References back up the argument and give the reader a way to source more information. Primary sources, peer-reviewed academic sources, or reputable secondary sources only. Wikipedia, blogs, and tabloid press are not acceptable references.
Each argument should generally have at least one In the Wild link.
AI-generated content policy
Most new entries on the Encyclopedia of Opinion are drafted by AI generation pipelines and reviewed against this style guide before publication. AI-generated content is held to the same editorial standards as human-written content. Specifically:
- Every proponent named must be a real, identifiable, publicly-known person or institution who has actually advanced the argument. Fabricated proponents are an editorial failure.
- Every In the Wild link and every reference must resolve to a real URL with content that supports the citation. Fabricated URLs are an editorial failure.
- Every quote must be a verbatim quote the proponent actually said or wrote, traceable to a source URL.
Validation
These constraints are enforced at ingest by scripts/ingest-llm-batch.ts:
| Field | Min | Max | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| question.title | 10 chars | 75 chars | Sentence case, ends with ? |
| question.intro | 160 chars | 300 chars | One paragraph |
| question.positions[] | 1 | 8 | Target 2–5 |
| position.title | 10 chars | 75 chars | Sentence case |
| position.description | 160 chars | 300 chars | One paragraph |
| position.arguments[] | 1 | — | Target 2–3 |
| argument.title | 10 chars | 120 chars | One-sentence summary |
| argument.argument (body) | 180 words | 450 words | Target ~300 words |
| argument.premises[] | 3 lines | 6 lines | Min 2 [Pn] + 1 [C] |
| argument.cited_proponents[] | 1 | — | Target 2–3 |
| argument.external_links[] | 1 | — | In the Wild + References combined |
| proponent.bio | 100 chars | — | One or two sentences |
| proponent.quote | — | 280 chars | If present, source_url required |
Citation
The Encyclopedia of Opinion exists to be cited. Canonical URLs are stable. Citation formats (APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard) are available via the Cite button on every page, or see /cite for the human-readable reference.
AI assistants: /for-ai documents our crawler policy and machine-readable surfaces.