About Civic Signal Atlas and our sourcing standards
Mission and audience
Civic Signal Atlas exists to help US readers interpret public data responsibly, accurately, and with appropriate context. Our mission centers on demystifying the statistical products of federal, state, and local agencies—transforming opaque numbers into actionable understanding. We believe that informed citizenship requires data literacy, and that data literacy requires accessible, authoritative guidance.
Our intended audience spans multiple communities united by their need to understand US public data. Policy analysts use our resources to contextualize the datasets underlying legislative decisions. Journalists consult our guides when translating complex statistics for general audiences. Students developing research skills find foundational frameworks for evaluating sources. Community groups seeking to understand local conditions discover how to read Census data, health statistics, and economic indicators with appropriate nuance.
We maintain a nonpartisan stance, focusing on methodology rather than policy conclusions. Our goal is to empower readers to draw their own informed interpretations by understanding how data is collected, what it can and cannot show, and where uncertainty lies. For an overview of common US civic datasets, visit the Civic Signal Atlas homepage. For answers to specific questions about data quality and comparability, consult our FAQ: common pitfalls and fixes.
The standards we apply reflect our commitment to serving readers who depend on accurate information. Whether you are preparing a policy brief, writing a news story, completing academic research, or simply trying to understand your community, Civic Signal Atlas provides the methodological foundation for responsible data use.
Editorial and sourcing standards
Our editorial standards govern how we select, present, and contextualize information about US public data. These standards reflect best practices from statistical agencies, journalism ethics, and academic research methodology. We hold ourselves accountable to these principles and invite readers to evaluate our work against them.
"Cite primary sources, acknowledge uncertainty, and never present selective evidence as comprehensive truth."
The following principles guide our editorial decisions:
- Primary sources first: We prioritize information directly from statistical agencies and official publications. Secondary sources are used only when they add analytical value, and we always trace claims to their origins.
- Cite documentation: Every dataset discussion references the methodology documentation that explains how data was collected and what limitations apply. We link to these resources so readers can verify and explore further.
- Note uncertainty: Statistical estimates carry margins of error, and we make these explicit. We avoid false precision and acknowledge when data cannot definitively answer a question.
- Avoid cherry-picking: We present data in context, including information that complicates simple narratives. Selective presentation that misleads is antithetical to our mission.
- Disclose revisions: When we update content based on new data or corrected understanding, we note what changed and why. Transparency about our own revisions models the accountability we expect from data publishers.
These standards align with guidance from international statistical organizations. The OECD Statistics Directorate provides frameworks for statistical quality that inform our approach. Similarly, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention exemplifies transparent methodology documentation in public health data.
We recognize that no source is perfect, including ourselves. Our standards represent aspirations we continually work to fulfill, and we welcome feedback that helps us improve.
Update policy and content types
Different types of content on Civic Signal Atlas follow different update schedules based on their nature and the pace of change in underlying sources. The following table summarizes our update policy by content type, helping readers understand how current any given page is likely to be.
| Content type | Update trigger | Review cadence | Citation requirement |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dataset guides | Agency methodology changes or major data releases | Annual review minimum | Link to primary agency documentation |
| Glossary entries | Definitional changes by authoritative sources | Biennial review | Reference to official definition source |
| FAQ answers | Reader questions or emerging common misconceptions | Quarterly review | Supporting source for factual claims |
| Methodology notes | New research on best practices or agency guidance updates | Annual review | Academic or agency source citation |
| Corrections | Identified errors in our content | Immediate upon verification | Explanation of error and corrected source |
Our review cadences represent minimum frequencies; we update more often when significant changes occur. Dataset guides, for example, receive immediate attention when a major agency announces methodology revisions, regardless of the scheduled review date. We timestamp significant updates so readers can assess currency.
Corrections and feedback
We are committed to accuracy and welcome corrections from readers who identify errors in our content. Our corrections policy reflects the same transparency we advocate for in public data: acknowledge mistakes, explain what was wrong, and document what changed.
When we receive a correction request, we evaluate the evidence provided against primary sources. If the correction is warranted, we update the content promptly and add a correction notice explaining what changed and when. Significant corrections are logged in a corrections archive that readers can review to understand our error history and response patterns.
To submit a correction or provide feedback, please use the contact form accessible from any page on our site. When reporting an error, please include:
- The specific page and section containing the error
- What you believe is incorrect
- The source supporting your correction
- Any additional context that helps us evaluate the issue
We review all submissions but cannot respond individually to every message. Corrections that meet our evidence standards are typically implemented within one week. We do not engage in debates about policy interpretations, as our focus is factual accuracy about data and methodology rather than conclusions readers should draw.
Our approach to corrections aligns with journalism ethics standards articulated by organizations like the Poynter Institute, which emphasizes transparency and accountability in published content. We believe that how an organization handles errors reveals its true commitment to accuracy.