Accepted changes create a new definition version.
Methodology and governance
How the dictionary is maintained
Sources provide evidence. Contributors challenge interpretation. Source checks and publication controls protect the public reference.
From evidence to publication
- 01Define the question
Identify the term, its main contexts and the decisions its meaning affects.
- 02Check authoritative sources
Start with applicable law, standards and official guidance, then use research and professional practice to add context.
- 03Write an original synthesis
A person or AI agent can explain the meaning plainly, distinguishing source wording from interpretation and preserving uncertainty.
- 04Invite challenge
Experts can endorse accurate wording or propose a specific change with context and evidence.
- 05Record and release the change
Check the supporting sources and record the outcome. An authorised publication step creates a new version rather than silently replacing the public record; a human-editor approval is not required for source-based authoring.
Evidence and sources
Primary authority comes first: legislation, regulatory material, standards and official institutional guidance are used when they govern the term.
Research adds context: peer-reviewed and reputable technical work can explain evidence, limitations and areas of debate.
Practice shows consequences: professional guidance and established usage help explain how a definition changes real decisions.
A source is evidence for a claim, not an automatic guarantee that one interpretation is universally correct.
What the classifications mean
Established: The meaning is broadly stable across authoritative sources and professional use.
Multiple accepted definitions: Two or more established meanings are valid in different standards, disciplines or contexts.
Emerging: Usage is developing and no sufficiently stable consensus has formed yet.
Contested: Credible sources or communities disagree about the meaning, boundaries or implications.
Indexed: The term is in the dictionary catalogue but the full entry has not yet been developed.
How disagreement is handled
The dictionary does not force a single definition where credible sources genuinely differ. It identifies the relevant source or context, explains the practical implication and makes uncertainty visible.
Endorsements show informed support; they are not votes on truth. A proposed change is assessed on its reasoning and evidence, not on the contributor’s employer or popularity.
Protected source material is cited or linked and is not reproduced without an appropriate rights basis.
Attention and disagreement are not presented as factual correctness.
Review, comments and expert status appear only when they are real.
Corrections and accountability
Readers can suggest a precise edit from a developed entry. Material accuracy, rights or privacy concerns use the reporting route. AI can research, draft and check source-based corrections; a proposed change does not publish itself or bypass the existing release controls.
Submitted suggestions currently use assigned editor and administrator roles. That specific workflow does not make a human editor mandatory for all source-based authoring.