About
Editorial Policy
How information gets onto this site, what standard it has to meet first, and what the site will not do.
60-Second Summary
- Information is sourced from public records, government documents, and peer-reviewed scientific literature — not from anonymous tips, rumor, or advocacy materials from any side.
- Every substantive statement is classified by evidentiary standing (see Methodology) and linked to its source.
- When two authoritative sources conflict, this site shows both and says so — it does not silently pick one.
- The site does not coach either side of the permitting process and does not allege wrongdoing without evidence.
Sourcing standard
Preference order: primary government and agency documents (Town of Lakeville, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, federal agencies) first, followed by peer-reviewed scientific literature, followed by other verifiable public records (news reporting, publicly filed documents). Every source is listed, numbered, and linked where a stable public URL exists, in the site's Source Library.
How conflicts between sources are handled
If two authoritative documents state different figures for the same fact, both are shown, both are cited, and the discrepancy is flagged in plain language rather than resolved by omission. Where a calculation must use one figure, the page explains which one it used and why — see Town Finances for a worked example involving Lakeville's earth-removal fee rate.
What this site does not publish
- Speculation presented as fact. Unverified rumors about the applicant, owners, or Town officials. Legal, engineering, appraisal, or medical advice. Content written to coach testimony for or against the project, or to supply rebuttals for either side. Allegations of wrongdoing without documentary evidence.
Corrections
Factual errors are corrected as soon as they're identified, and the correction is logged. See Corrections for the current log and how to submit one.