Skip to content

Contributing to the AntiAlienate Knowledge Base

This repository's credibility rests on a single principle: every load-bearing claim must be traceable to a primary source. Contributors and maintainers alike must follow the editorial standards below.

For every factual claim, citation, statistic, judgment, or expert opinion:

  • Provide a working URL to the primary source (judgment text, peer-reviewed paper, statute, official guidance, named-reporter article).
  • No paywalled-only sources without an open-access alternative or accurate quotation.
  • Verify the URL resolves at time of writing. If it disappears later, treat as link rot and update.
  • Cite verbatim for load-bearing language. Do not paraphrase courts, statutes, or peer-reviewed conclusions when the exact wording matters.
  • No invented details. If you can't verify a name, citation, date, or holding from a primary source, mark it **not publicly confirmed** and explain why.

What counts as a primary source

Topic Primary source
Court judgment The judgment itself (BAILII / CanLII / AustLII / HUDOC / SAFLII / state-court records / Légifrance / CENDOJ / Italgiure / De Rechtspraak / sn.pl / stj.jus.br / indiankanoon.org / scjn.gob.mx / saij.gob.ar / elitigation.sg / etc.)
Statute The official gazette or legislative-text portal in the jurisdiction
Peer-reviewed paper The published article (publisher URL + DOI + PubMed/PMC mirror if available)
Professional-body position The body's own published statement (not a third-party summary)
Journalism Named-reporter article in a verifiable outlet
Government / institutional guidance The official publication portal

What does NOT count as a primary source

  • Wikipedia (use as a finding aid only; cite what Wikipedia cites)
  • Quoting commentary about a case rather than the case itself
  • Press releases written by parties to a dispute
  • Forum threads, Reddit posts, or social-media accounts (these can be context but never the source for a factual claim)
  • A book's marketing page (cite the book itself with publisher + year + chapter)

2. Anonymisation respect

  • Family-law judgments typically anonymise children's names. Work within that anonymisation in your write-up.
  • Where a child's name has been so widely reported in the contemporary press (e.g. the Tsimhoni children) that pretending otherwise would be dishonest, acknowledge the issue explicitly in the page itself — do not silently use the name without flagging the tension.
  • Adult parties' names that appear in the published judgment text may be used. Adult parties' names that appear in journalism but not in the judgment require the journalism citation.
  • Counsel, expert witnesses, and judges named in the published judgment may be named in the write-up.

3. Both sides of contested questions

This is a contested field. The repo represents both recognition-camp and critique-camp literatures, figures, and case law. The editorial position is:

  • Present the strongest evidence on each side. Steelman, don't strawman.
  • Cite the critique explicitly even when writing about pro-recognition material, and vice versa.
  • Identify what is empirically established vs. what is contested. Use clear confidence-level language (e.g., the evidence base has explicit "high confidence / moderate / low confidence" sections).
  • Do not advocate for one side in factual write-ups. Practical playbook content (e.g. "first 90 days for a targeted parent") is necessarily oriented to a specific reader, but factual reference pages must be neutral.

4. Voice & attribution

  • Author byline for curated material: Alan Markson (see existing pages).
  • Do not reference internal project context, names, or operational details outside of authorised places.
  • Do not publish anything that puts a child, a victim, or a witness at additional risk. When in doubt, don't publish — open an issue first.

5. Pull-request hygiene

  • One page or one tight section per PR.
  • Title format: <section>: <short description> (e.g. case-studies: add Hoge Raad 2005 contact-obstruction).
  • Body must include: the primary sources you used, what (if anything) you flagged as **not publicly confirmed**, and your reasoning if the page touches contested questions.
  • Maintainers will reject PRs that:
  • Cite secondary sources for load-bearing claims when the primary is available
  • Invent details about named individuals
  • Take a one-sided stance on contested questions in a reference page
  • Add value-card or meme content without underlying primary-source backing

6. What to do if you spot an error

Open a GitHub issue with: - The page URL and the specific paragraph - The error - The primary-source citation that supports the correction

We update factual corrections within 24 hours on receipt.

7. What we are actively seeking

See the case studies open gaps and the evidence section coming-next list. Particularly wanted:

  • Primary-source case studies from jurisdictions not yet covered
  • Translations of strongest playbooks into FR / DE / NL / ES / PT
  • Peer-reviewed papers we've missed
  • Corrections to any **not publicly confirmed** items, with the verifying citation

8. License

Everything in the repository is CC BY 4.0. By contributing, you license your contribution under CC BY 4.0 and confirm that you have the right to do so.

Reviewed and confirmed editorial standard: 2026-05-25. This document is itself open to PR if you think a standard needs strengthening or clarifying.

— AntiAlienate.com · CC BY 4.0