Sources Precede Identity
Experts, enterprises, and ordinary users must provide verifiable evidence. Authentication identifies 'who is speaking' but does not automatically prove 'what is being said is correct'.
Wiki · Contribution guidelines
Open Work. Clear Accountability.
NOOVIVE Wiki is free, public-facing, and allows all verified accounts to submit edits. We do not allow anonymous editing; whether an edit goes directly into the stable version depends on edit risk, Sources quality, and account reputation.
Core principles
Principles that all contributions follow
Neutrality Isn't Absence of Judgment
Present analyses and causal hypotheses but clearly distinguish facts, inferences, and opinions, explaining the basis, boundaries, counterexamples, and uncertainties.
Maintain Revisability
Entries are not static reports. Significant modifications retain versions, reasons, and contributor records; new reliable evidence can trigger reviews and rollbacks.
Roles and permissions
Users and permissions
General participation does not require disclosing real names; stricter identity verification is required for professional endorsements, institutional representation, or compensation.
| Role | Identity Requirements | Primary Permissions | Constraints |
|---|---|---|---|
| Visitor | No Account Required | Read, search, view public sources and version information | Cannot submit edits, discussions, or issues. |
| Verified Accounts | Verify your email, phone number, or WeChat | Submitting editing suggestions, sources, discussions, and questions; following page updates. | New accounts and medium to high-risk modifications default to review |
| Trustworthy Editing | Continuous contribution with a good historical adoption rate. | Low-risk edits can be posted directly; participate in patrols and partial reviews. | Permissions may be downgraded due to severe errors, conflicts of interest, or misuse. |
| Certified Expert | Real Name, Institutional or Professional Experience, and Domain Verification | Reviewing professional judgment, authorship contributions, and accepting paid opinion tasks. | Disclosure of relevant interests is required; professional identity does not confer ultimate decision-making authority. |
| Corporate Representatives | Company Email or Other Authorized Proof | Submit official documents, formal responses, and receive updates on the company entry. | Cannot claim entries, delete unfavorable content, or control research conclusions. |
| Admin | Platform authorization and enabling stronger account protection. | Handling high-risk modifications, disputes, permissions, rollbacks, and malicious behavior. | Important management operations retain audit records. |
Review workflow
From Proposal to Stable Version
AI is responsible for organizing, verifying, and risk diversion, but does not replace human accountability.
Submit and generate differences
Record the modified object, previous and current content, reasons, sources, submitter identity, and potential conflicts of interest.
AI Pre-check and Risk Grading
Check Source Accessibility, Fact Conflicts, Numerical Basis, Duplicate Proposals, Privacy, and Offensive Content, and Provide Low, Medium, and High-Risk Recommendations.
Enter review by risk
Low-Risk Changes Can Be Automatically Merged When Rules Are Met and Subject to Spot Checks; Medium-Risk Changes Require Administrator Confirmation; High-Risk Changes Invite Related Experts for Review.
Publish, explain, or return
Generated after review; returned to the submitter for additional content if needed; recorded reasons for non-acceptance and retained channels for appeal and resubmission.
Automatic merging is applicable only to low-risk modifications that do not alter the substantive meaning and have clear and conflict-free sources. AI suggestions, administrator decisions, and expert opinions are all retained in the audit trail, along with the final version.
Risk-based review
Not all edits go through the same review
Low-Risk Modification
Spelling errors, formatting issues, broken links, source completion, and non-substantive rephrasing for improved clarity.
Core Conclusion · Peer-reviewed papersModerate risk modifications
Corporate data, metric bases, industry classifications, relationship adjustments, and significant rewrites that alter the original meaning.
Structural differences, sources, and corresponding permissions require editor confirmation.High-Risk Modification
Negative accusations, causal conclusions, legal and financial judgments, significant DNA changes, and highly controversial content.
Require trustworthy editors or relevant experts to review; consider delaying publication or protecting the page if necessary.Sources
Source and evidence requirements
Usual Priorities
- Core Conclusion · Industry Intelligence
- AI · Business Model
- Operating Loop · Industry Intelligence
- Original materials that can reproduce the calculation process, basis, and time frame.
Often insufficient to support major judgments alone.
- Secondary sources without original links, search snippets, or anonymous screenshots.
- Company marketing materials, personal social media, and unverified self-descriptions.
- The generated content by large models; AI can only assist in organizing, not as a source of facts.
- Unverifiable rankings or statistics that do not explain data collection methods, samples, and basis.
The Sources hierarchy is not a mechanical ranking. Firsthand materials may also have vested interests, and secondhand investigations may better reveal controversies; editors need to judge relevance, independence, and verifiability in light of specific claims.
Neutrality and disagreement
Handling Different Perspectives
First determine which layer the dispute belongs to
Determine if the discrepancy is due to a fact error, different Basis, varying Evidence strength, different causal explanations, or different values and strategic preferences.
Compare evidence rather than like counts
Evaluate source quality, directness, timeliness, replicability, and counterexamples. Consensus does not automatically override stronger evidence.
Reliable Disagreements Can Coexist
When evidence cannot uniquely determine a conclusion, list the main interpretations, marking their respective premises, supporting evidence, and applicable conditions.
Ongoing disputes enter higher-level review.
If editorial discussions fail, invite unbiased editors or experts for review, and protect high-risk pages from edit wars.
Public knowledge and paid expertise
The boundary between free knowledge and paid expert insights
Always enter the free Wiki
- Fact Correction, Source Verification, and Metric Basis
- Necessary Counterexamples and Important Controversies for Public Entries
- Methodology, version, and evidence explanations are necessary for understanding the conclusions.
Can Form Paid Expert Views
- Attributed and time-bound predictions and scenario analyses
- Professional Advice and Customized Interpretations for Specific Decisions
- Business Model · Basis
Payment should not be a barrier to obtaining correct facts. Expert opinions must be clearly separated from the stable version of the Wiki and disclose the author, date of publication, interests, and scope of applicability.
Versions and citation
Version, Attribution, and Citations
Version History
Record important modification times, objects, differences, reasons, sources, and handlers; stable versions can be compared and rolled back.
Contribution Attribution
Public display names are chosen by users; accounts and review records are used for governance. Contributions that are merged, rewritten, or rejected still retain processing records.
External references
Cite NOOVIVE Wiki, article title, page link, and access or version date, and verify the original Sources and applicable Basis.
Not allowed
Prohibited contribution behaviors
- Fabricated sources, fabricated identities, manipulated multiple accounts, fake likes, or organized editorial warfare.
- Revealing private information, commercial secrets, infringement full texts, or malicious software or security vulnerability details.
- Unrevealed conflicts of interest in advertising, public relations rewrites, competitive attacks, or paid conclusions.
- Discrimination, harassment, threats, and personal attacks based on nationality, gender, race, religion, etc.
- Repeating already explained claims without new evidence interferes with normal review.
Governance
More Access Demands More Accountability.
Chapter editing, version comparison, trusted editing permissions, and expert review all enter a unified version and audit system. High-privilege roles cannot bypass Sources requirements; high-risk edits must retain diffs, handling rationale, and rollback records.