Disputes process

Resource pages with editorial context can have a Disputes and context panel. It is editorial: we describe each dispute about the resource, attribute each position, and take no side. Each panel is written by one editor and read by a second reader, and the sources behind it carry fetched dates. If you think a description is unfair, inaccurate or incomplete, this is the route. Disputes enter the staff request inbox; include an email if you want a written response.

What can be disputed

• A description in the Disputes and context panel.
• The standing questions answered on a resource page.
• The Made by label, the tradition shown, or the funding line.
• An institutional position: its wording, its date, or its source.
• A comparison page’s wording.
• A guide’s wording where it describes a specific resource.

What cannot be disputed here: a review, a vote, a meter, a share, or where a listing sorts. Those come from the counting rule and the methodology, and no dispute changes them. A wrong fact on a spec sheet is a correction request, not a dispute; use “Request a correction” on the spec sheet. A review you think breaks the moderation policy is a report, not a dispute.

Who can dispute

Anyone. You do not need to be the maker, and you do not need an account; the “Dispute this description” link on every panel opens the form. Say which sentence you dispute, what you say is wrong, and where we can read a source. We cannot act on “this is unfair” without a sentence and a reason.

What happens next

1. The request is recorded in the staff inbox with its date and resource reference.
2. The editor who did not write the panel re-reads every source behind the disputed sentence and reads yours.
3. An editor records the outcome: changed, with the new wording; or unchanged, with the reason.
4. Request outcomes are counted in aggregate on Transparency. Private messages and contact details are not published as a case-by-case log.

A change to a description is itself editorial, so it goes through the same second reader as the original.

Maker replies

A maker can submit a reply or a correction through the maker and request forms. Where an editorial reply is published, it is attributed to the maker. Submitting a form does not automatically publish or edit a public reply. A maker reply never changes the description itself; that is what the dispute route is for. Verification of a maker account is described on the maker page.

What a dispute cannot do

• Remove a dated, sourced position against a maker. Positions for and against are listed when they are public and dated.
• Add, edit, hide or remove a review or a vote.
• Change a meter, a share, or a sort.
• Delist a competitor, or object to one being listed.

Our own app

REVA has no Disputes panel and no description, so there is nothing of ours to dispute about it. Concerns that a guide or description favors REVA are handled as conflict reports. REVA staff receive the request; authorized participating-company moderators can inspect relevant moderation activity. A separately commissioned outside review is credited only when its reviewer and completed work are identified on the conflicts page.

The log

Dispute requests and their recorded outcomes are counted on Transparency under Requests; individual request messages and replies stay in the staff inbox. Corrections and suggestions are logged the same way, under their own headings, so that a reader can see how often we change our minds and how often we do not.