Editorial policy
Sourcing, accuracy, corrections, contributions, and the use of AI on WikiPsilocybin
This page sets out the standards every article on WikiPsilocybin is held to. Readers who find an article falling short of them are asked to report it.
Sourcing standards
Claims of fact must be supported by one of the following, in order of preference:
- Peer-reviewed research, cited with authors, journal, year, and DOI. Systematic reviews and randomised trials are preferred over single observational studies and case reports, and the article should say which kind of evidence it is citing.
- Publications from governments, regulators, and public health bodies, such as the FDA, DEA, NIDA, SAMHSA, state regulatory divisions, and their international equivalents.
- Clinical trial registrations, for statements about ongoing research.
- Original reporting by a named journalist at an established outlet, for news events, with a preference for the outlet closest to the story.
Press releases and secondary summaries may be linked for convenience but do not on their own support a claim. Anonymous sources, forum posts, and vendor sites are not used as sources. Podcasts and popular books may be the subject of an article but are not cited as evidence for scientific claims.
Describing evidence honestly
- Sample sizes, study design, and control conditions are stated for any clinical result, so that a 12-person open-label pilot is not presented as equivalent to a phase 3 trial.
- Effect sizes are given as reported, with the comparison condition, and not converted into more impressive-sounding framings.
- Preliminary, unreplicated, or preprint findings are labelled as such.
- Where evidence is absent, for example on long-term microdosing safety or use in adolescents, the article says so rather than filling the gap with speculation.
- Articles about risk are held to the same standard as articles about benefit. Neither understating nor overstating harm is acceptable.
Use of AI
AI language models are used on this site to draft prose, restructure text, and check citation formatting. They are treated as a writing tool, not a source of information, because they can produce plausible-sounding studies, statistics, and quotations that do not exist.
Before publication, the editor checks every factual claim in an AI-assisted draft against the cited source and removes anything that cannot be traced. Every article on the site has been through this check. If a reader finds a claim that does not match its source, that is a correction-worthy error regardless of how it was introduced.
In September 2026 an audit of the site's news section found several entries, published before this policy was in place, that described studies and statistics that did not exist. They were removed and replaced with sourced entries; the one removed article URL redirects to its sourced replacement. That audit is the reason this policy exists.
Expert review
Articles on medical and safety topics are offered for review to researchers and clinicians working in the relevant field. A reviewed article shows the reviewer's name, affiliation, and review date at the top of the page. Reviewers check accuracy and balance; they do not write the article, are not paid, and their review does not imply their institution's endorsement. Reviewers may withdraw their name at any time by emailing the editor.
Contributed articles
WikiPsilocybin publishes original contributions from researchers and practitioners, typically plain-language summaries of their own published work, commentary on a development in the field, or interviews. Contributed articles:
- carry the author's byline, affiliation, and a link to their institutional or personal page at the top of the article;
- remain the author's copyright; WikiPsilocybin receives a non-exclusive licence to publish and the author may republish anywhere;
- are edited only for house style and clarity, with all substantive edits approved by the author before publication;
- are removed on the author's request.
The site does not republish papers or manuscripts that are under a publisher's copyright. Where a paper is open access under a Creative Commons licence, the site links to the version of record rather than hosting a copy.
Corrections
Errors are corrected as soon as they are confirmed. A correction that changes the meaning of an article is noted at the bottom of that article with the date and what was changed. Minor fixes to typography and formatting are made silently. To report an error, email editor@wikipsilocybin.com with the page URL and, where possible, a source for the correct information. Reports are acknowledged within seven days.
Independence and conflicts of interest
WikiPsilocybin is self-funded by its editor. It carries no advertising, accepts no sponsorship, sells no products or services, and has no affiliate relationships with treatment centres, retailers, or manufacturers. It is not affiliated with any advocacy organisation. If that changes, this page will say so before any such arrangement takes effect.
Harm-reduction stance
The site provides information that helps people who use or may use psilocybin do so with less risk: accurate dosing ranges, contraindications, drug interactions, mushroom identification hazards, and what to do in an emergency. It does not provide instructions for obtaining, cultivating, or extracting psilocybin, and it does not link to sources of supply. This position is consistent with the approach of public health bodies and harm-reduction organisations, and it is applied evenly: the site does not discourage use through exaggerated risk claims any more than it encourages use through exaggerated benefit claims.
Policy adopted September 2026.