Editorial policy
Robot Wiki exists to make modern robotics legible without hiding uncertainty, deployment constraints, or disagreement. It is an independently maintained technical reference, not a product ranking service. Sources should let a reader verify a claim rather than ask them to trust the author.
Sources and evidence
Non-obvious factual claims require a citation. Papers, official documentation, dataset cards, standards, and first-party technical reports are preferred. A secondary source is used when it is the clearest available record or when a primary source cannot be retrieved, and that limitation should remain visible. Unknown values are reported as unknown, not estimated.
Review and updates
Every published article passes the content schema, citation resolution, internal-link, accessibility, and production-build checks. The visible review date changes only after a material factual or explanatory review. Fast-moving model, dataset, evaluation, and deployment pages are checked more often than evergreen mathematical foundations.
Expert criticism
Researchers, maintainers, engineers, and educators may be asked to inspect a specific article for errors or missing context. Reviewing a page does not mean endorsing Robot Wiki or every claim on that page. A reviewer is named only with permission, and conflicts are disclosed when someone reviews coverage of their own work.
Corrections
A correction should identify the page, the disputed claim, and a source that supports the proposed change. Confirmed errors are fixed in the article and its structured data or interactive where relevant. Material corrections receive a new review date; silent date bumps are not permitted.
Open a content-correction report on GitHub or review the repository's authorship and image credits.