Editorial Standards
These standards explain how What If HQ plans, writes, reviews, and updates its thought experiments.
Clear Scenario Rules
An article should state what changes, how long the change lasts, who knows about it, and which parts of ordinary life remain unchanged. Clear rules prevent the answer from quietly changing its assumptions halfway through.
Original Analysis
We aim to add more than a list of obvious advantages and disadvantages. Useful analysis may trace consequences over time, compare people with different interests, examine unintended effects, or show why the same rule can create both benefits and harm.
Facts, Inferences, and Fiction
- Facts describe the real world and should be checked when they are important to the argument.
- Inferences are reasoned possibilities and are described with language such as “could,” “may,” or “is likely to.”
- Fictional examples illustrate a scenario and are not presented as real people, events, studies, or quotations.
Sources
Many hypothetical questions can be explored through transparent reasoning alone. When an article makes a material claim about psychology, workplace policy, child development, health, law, or another factual subject, it should link to a relevant and trustworthy source rather than invent authority.
Professional Boundaries
What If HQ is not a counseling, medical, legal, financial, or employment-advice service. Articles may discuss relationships, family life, and workplaces, but they do not diagnose people or replace advice from a qualified professional who understands a reader’s circumstances.
Corrections and Updates
We correct material errors, replace broken sources, clarify confusing assumptions, and substantially revise articles that no longer meet these standards. Dates are changed only when content is genuinely updated.
Contact
Send corrections or editorial questions to contact@whatifhq.com. Please include the page address and a short explanation of the issue.