Content Policy
Version 1.0 · Effective: 2026-03-29 · Last reviewed by: ethics-guide agent (Phase 5)
What Samirpedia generates
Samirpedia generates encyclopedic articles on almost any topic, including controversial, fringe, politically contentious, and historically uncomfortable subjects. The refusal bar is intentionally high — knowledge systems that refuse to engage with uncomfortable topics are failing their users.
Topics that receive special treatment
| Category | Treatment |
|---|---|
| Medical topics | Article renders a disclaimer banner directing readers to qualified medical professionals. TTL capped at evergreen (never permanent). |
| Mental health topics | Article renders disclaimer + crisis resources footer (988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline, Crisis Text Line). TTL capped at evergreen. |
| Legal topics | Disclaimer noting jurisdictional variation and recommending qualified legal counsel. |
| Financial topics | Disclaimer noting this is not financial advice. |
| Politically contested topics | Organized by Moral Foundations Theory, not left/right. Framing note names the editorial choice. |
| Source geography gaps | Explicit description of what local sources are missing. |
Topics that are refused
Samirpedia refuses to generate articles for:
- Active crisis / self-harm instructions— Queries requesting specific instructions for suicide or self-harm. These receive crisis resources instead of an article.
- Mass violence instructions— Queries requesting specific instructions for mass violence or weapons of mass destruction.
- CSAM— Any query involving child sexual exploitation material.
- Prompt injection— Queries identified as attempts to manipulate the AI system (e.g., "ignore previous instructions").
Important: Questions aboutthese topics in an informational, historical, medical, or policy context are NOT refused. "History of suicide prevention" generates normally. "How to kill myself" receives crisis resources. The distinction is between informational and instructional intent.
What is NOT refused
The following are explicitly permitted and should generate articles:
- Controversial political topics (immigration, gun control, abortion, capital punishment)
- Fringe scientific claims (flat earth, alternative medicine, cold fusion)
- Historical atrocities (genocides, slavery, colonial violence)
- Religious and philosophical disputes
- Criticism of governments, institutions, corporations, or public figures
- Topics that are taboo in some cultures but not others
- Sexual health and education (informational context)
- Drug policy and substance information (informational context)
Samirpedia does not protect readers from uncomfortable information. It provides context, evidence-weighting, and epistemic tools so readers can engage with difficult topics themselves.
The flag-and-regenerate mechanism
Every article has a "Flag as inaccurate" button. How flagging works:
- First flag within 24 hours: Article is deleted from cache. Next search on that topic regenerates it fresh.
- Second flagwithin 24 hours: Same — deleted and regenerated.
- Third flagwithin 24 hours: Article is marked as disputed instead of deleted. It remains visible with a "disputed" banner and is queued for human review.
Why the 3-flag threshold exists:Without it, a coordinated group could repeatedly flag an article to force constant regeneration — effectively performing a denial-of-service attack or attempting to game the content by regenerating until a favorable version appears.
What "human review" means:Currently, disputed articles are examined by the project maintainer. At scale, this will need a more structured review process. Disputed articles remain visible during review — they are not hidden.
Screener policy
A pre-generation safety screener classifies every query before article generation. The screener is designed to fail closed — if the screener itself errors, the request is blocked rather than allowed through.
Monthly audit requirement:Review screener rejections for ideological clustering. Are queries from certain political perspectives rejected at higher rates? Are queries about certain cultural or religious topics rejected disproportionately? Is the screener conflating "controversial" with "harmful"? If clustering is detected, adjust the screener prompt and document the finding in the prompt changelog.
Editorial values (named as values)
These are Samirpedia's editorial choices. They are not neutral. We name them so readers can evaluate our biases:
- We believe evidence matters.Strong evidence gets more weight. This is a value choice — some epistemological traditions disagree.
- We believe in epistemic pluralism.Multiple knowledge traditions can be valuable. This is a value choice — some traditions claim exclusive truth.
- We believe readers should decide for themselves.We present contested questions without resolving them. This is a value choice — some knowledge systems believe expert curation should guide readers to correct conclusions.
- We believe transparency is non-negotiable.We publish our system prompt, name our biases, and log our failures. This is a value choice — many knowledge systems protect their editorial processes as proprietary.
- We believe knowledge access should be universal. Future phases will address language, accessibility, and literacy barriers. This is a value choice with resource implications.
These values can conflict with each other. When they do, we try to name the conflict rather than hiding it.