The standard this archive is edited by — and how to check any claim on it yourself, without needing to reach anyone.
This page is published in English. The English text is the authoritative version.
This is a description of how the archive is edited. It is not a promise to any person, an undertaking to respond to anyone, or a service that can be invoked — see no channel below. It binds the archive's own practice, which is the only thing a publisher can honestly bind.
The design principle of the site is that verification is the reader's, not the publisher's. That is why every claim carries its document:
An archive whose claims can only be checked by asking its publisher is worth little. This one is built so that the check never requires us, and the underlying register is a plain file at /data/sources.json if you would rather read it directly.
Most errors in this genre are not invented facts. They are accurate quotations put to work in ways the document does not support. Four rules exist against that:
Every entry carries the date its link was opened and read. That date is a statement about a moment, not a warranty about today. The register is re-checked as part of ordinary editing, and the footer of every page carries the date the register was last verified and how many entries it holds.
Where a document is superseded — a newer threat assessment, an amended statute, a judgment on appeal — the archive's rule is to date the older one and record that it has been superseded, not to delete it. The history of what an institution said, and when, is part of the record.
Where an organisation described here has published its own response, the archive's rule is to link that response next to the material it answers, in the organisation's own words and at the organisation's own address. This is already the practice: the Muslim Brotherhood's own submission to the UK review, and that review's finding that it had not been linked to terrorist activity in the UK, are both on this site.
A published response is therefore the effective route by which a named organisation's position reaches this archive's readers — publicly, in its own words, without depending on private correspondence with an anonymous publisher.
This is stated bluntly for a reason: so that silence is never mistaken for a decision. Nothing that anyone sends is refused, ignored or declined on the merits, because nothing is received at all. The reason for the design is the anonymity of the project, which is set out in the legal notice.
Nothing on this page is an undertaking, a promise to any person, a response time, a complaints procedure or a service. This archive is not an intermediary service under the Digital Services Act, owes no notice-and-action duty under Article 16 of Regulation (EU) 2022/2065, and does not create one voluntarily here — the scope assessment is in the legal notice. Rights that exist in law — a statutory counter-statement (Gegendarstellung) under § 20 of the German Medienstaatsvertrag, the French online right of reply under the LCEN with the procedure in décret n° 2007-1527 du 24 octobre 2007, a complaint to a data protection authority under Article 77 GDPR — exist whatever this page says, and are unaffected by it.
The cost of having no channel is real and is not disguised here. A person who believes this archive is wrong cannot tell the publisher, and the publisher may therefore learn of an error later than it otherwise would. What is offered instead is the verification route above — every claim attached to a document anyone can open — and a standing editorial rule that errors are corrected on the archive's own initiative when they become apparent, from any quarter, including public criticism.
Each entry records the date, the page, what was wrong, what it now says, and the source that settled it. Substantive changes to the legal notices are recorded here too, so that their version history is auditable rather than silent.
Legal notice · Privacy notice · Terms of use · Methodology
Version 1.0 — published and last reviewed 14 August 2026.