How this site is sourced, reviewed and corrected
Every substantive page carries a review status, a source list and a road to correction. Here is what those labels mean — and what we refuse to publish without them.
Cultural information on the internet tends to arrive with false confidence: no sources, no dates, no sense of what is settled and what is contested. We are building the opposite habit into the platform itself. Every substantive cultural page on this site shows a review status — draft, preliminary, research reviewed, or community reviewed — along with the sources consulted and the date of last review.
Right now, almost everything you will read here is marked preliminary. That is not modesty theatre; it is the truth of a project at the beginning. Content drafted from strong published literature still awaits the reviews that matter most — from subject specialists and, above all, from Mapuche readers.
What we will not do
We do not invent cultural details, translations, statistics or quotations. Where the mockups that inspired this site's design showed imagined regalia, we treated them as art direction, not evidence. Where knowledge is ceremonial or restricted, we say that it exists and stop. Where sources disagree, the disagreement is content — labelled contested — rather than a problem to be smoothed away.
Synthetic voices will never be presented as native speech. Language audio arrives when it can be real: recorded with speakers and teachers, credited and reviewed. Until then, the lessons are text-first and say so plainly.
Corrections are part of the architecture
If something here is wrong, incomplete or framed badly, telling us should be easy and consequential. The corrections page explains the philosophy now and will grow into a working channel with named reviewers. Corrections will be logged, credited where wanted, and visible in a page's history. An archive that cannot admit error is just confidence with a design system.