CozyWiki uses a pending changes model: anyone can edit without an account, and every edit is reviewed by a human moderator before it becomes the live article. This is the mechanism that lets "anyone can edit" and "every fact is checked" both be true.

The pipeline

  1. You submit an edit (or a new page) with a required edit summary. It enters the public review queue — the page immediately shows how many edits are pending.
  2. A moderator reviews it: opening the diff, checking each new or changed factual claim against the citation given, and checking tone against the Style guide.
  3. Approve publishes the change, updates the article's citation records, and adds the revision — permanently credited to the name you chose — to the page's public history. Reject records the revision with a reviewer note explaining why; you are welcome to fix and resubmit.

The review checklist

Moderators approve an edit when:

  • every new factual claim cites a reliable source that actually supports it;
  • links point where they claim to point;
  • the tone is neutral and encyclopedic;
  • no text is pasted from copyrighted sources (paraphrase; quote only briefly with attribution);
  • the change doesn't remove sourced content without explanation.

Common rejection reasons

Unsourced facts (the big one), sources that don't support the claim, promotional tone, copied text, speculation about unreleased content, and duplicate submissions. Rejections are about the edit, never the editor — resubmitting with better sourcing is normal and welcome.

Transparency

Every accepted revision is public forever in each page's History tab and the site-wide Recent changes feed (also available as RSS). Reviewer notes are visible in history. Nothing is silently edited — if we were wrong, the correction is part of the record.

Vandalism and abuse

Rate limits and spam checks slow bulk abuse; rejected junk simply never publishes. Persistent bad-faith submissions may have their IP-hash rate-limited further. There is no ban hammer to swing at good-faith mistakes — those are just edits that need better sources.

Growing the moderator team

Today, review is handled by the founding editorial team. As trusted contributors accumulate a track record of well-sourced edits, the plan is to grant review rights the same way established wikis do: openly, based on demonstrated care. If you want in, the application is your edit history.