These standards guide how pages in a whoami.wiki encyclopedia should be written. Whether you're writing by hand or reviewing output from an AI agent, the goal is the same: a consistent, readable encyclopedia that treats personal history with the same rigor as any other subject.
One canonical home
Every piece of content lives in exactly one place. Other pages link to it; they don't duplicate it. If two people took a road trip together, the story lives on one episode page. Each person page links to it with a sentence or two of context. It doesn't get retold on both.
Prefer splitting to growing
When in doubt, make a new page. A story that takes more than two paragraphs to tell properly deserves its own page. The person page becomes a hub of links, not a monolith of content.
Documentary voice on person pages
Third person, past tense, factual. The person page reads like a Wikipedia article. "Jane attended Humboldt University," not "She went to this school called Humboldt." No direct address to the reader. No editorial commentary on whether something was good or bad.
Episode pages allow storytelling
Episode pages have more latitude in voice. They're still third-person and factual, but they can be more narrative: setting scenes, building to punchlines, letting the voice notes speak at length. They're the difference between an encyclopedia entry and a well-told story.
Creating episode pages
When processing a message thread and encountering a rich narrative sequence (typically 3+ voice notes telling a story, or a sustained back-and-forth about a specific event), note this on the talk page and create a follow-up task to build an episode page for it. The person page gets a one-sentence summary with a link; the episode page gets the full treatment.
Don't interpret for the reader
An encyclopedia states facts. It does not tell the reader how to feel about them, inflate their significance, or narrate their broader meaning. This is the single most important quality standard for the encyclopedia, and the one that requires the most vigilance during editing. Several specific habits undermine it:
Don't editorialize
Words like "staggering," "extraordinary," "harrowing," "spectacular," and "surgical precision" are editorial judgments dressed up as description. Replace them with specifics that let the reader draw their own conclusions.
Before: The conversation density during this period was staggering: 1,800 messages in five days.
After: They exchanged 1,800 messages in five days, averaging 360 per day.
The fix is almost always the same: replace the adjective with the specific fact that prompted it. If there's no specific fact behind the adjective, cut it.
Don't inflate significance
Resist the urge to explain why something matters by connecting it to a broader theme or trend. Phrases like "marking a pivotal turning point," "reflecting a broader shift toward," "underscoring the significance of," or "setting the stage for" add no information. If something is significant, the facts will demonstrate it without a caption. This also applies to tacking on superficial analysis at the end of a sentence, often via a present participle: "...creating a lively community within its borders," "...further enhancing its significance as a dynamic hub."
Before: The move to Berlin marked a pivotal turning point in her career, reflecting a broader desire for creative independence.
After: She moved to Berlin in March 2019 and began freelancing full-time.
Don't use promotional language
Writing about someone's life can drift into admiration, especially around accomplishments or creative work. Keep the register neutral. Avoid language that reads like a blurb, a recommendation letter, or travel copy. Words like "vibrant," "rich" (in the figurative sense), "renowned," "groundbreaking," "nestled," "showcasing," and "boasts" belong in marketing materials, not encyclopedias.
Don't attribute vaguely
When stating a claim, be specific about where it comes from. Avoid vague attributions like "observers have noted," "friends describe her as," or "it has been said that" when you can cite a specific source. If no specific source exists for a claim, that's a sign the claim may not belong in the encyclopedia.
Prose quality
Good encyclopedic prose is plain, varied, and direct. The following guidelines address common problems.
Say "is" when you mean "is"
Prefer simple copulatives over elaborate substitutions. "The archive is the largest in the collection" is better than "The archive stands as the largest in the collection." Similarly, "She was a photographer" beats "She served as a photographer." Reserve "serves as" and "stands as" for cases where something literally serves a function distinct from what it is.
Keep sentences short
If a sentence exceeds roughly 40 words, it probably needs to be split. Long sentences with multiple subordinate clauses make the reader do too much work. A good opening paragraph looks like this:
Jane Doe (born 3 May 1997) is a Berlin-based photographer and former classmate. She and the wiki owner connected over film photography in early 2021, collaborated on a zine, and met in person in Berlin that November. The friendship faded after Jane moved to Tokyo in early 2022.
Archive statistics like message counts and thread sizes are useful but belong in a dedicated section on communication history, not the lead. The lead should describe the person and the relationship. The archive is how we know about it, not what it is.
Vary rhythm and structure
Monotonous prose reads as lifeless: every sentence the same length, every paragraph the same shape. Mix short declarative sentences with longer ones. Let some paragraphs be two sentences and others be five. The pacing should follow the material, not a template.
Watch especially for the "rule of three": the tendency to list things in triplets ("adjective, adjective, and adjective" or "short phrase, short phrase, and short phrase") as a way to make a point feel comprehensive. Once is fine; as a recurring pattern it becomes a tic.
Use punctuation precisely
Em dashes, colons, semicolons, and parentheses each have a job. Problems arise when one punctuation mark (especially the em dash) gets used as a Swiss Army knife for every purpose: parenthetical asides, quote attributions, dramatic pauses, inline lists, and clause connectors. When one mark does every job, it stops doing any job well.
If you find em dashes piling up, try substituting: a period and new sentence, a colon, parentheses, or restructuring the clause order. Many paragraphs should have no em dashes at all.
Don't cycle through synonyms
When referring to the same thing multiple times, it's fine to repeat the word. Cycling through synonyms to avoid repetition ("the conversation," "the exchange," "the dialogue," "the correspondence") creates the impression of variety while actually making the text harder to follow. If you said "conversation" the first time, say "conversation" again.
Watch for false ranges
"From X to Y" constructions should describe a real scale with identifiable endpoints and a coherent middle ground. "From casual banter to existential confessions" is a false range. There's no scale between those things, and the construction exists only to sound sweeping. If you can't identify what falls in between X and Y on a single axis, rewrite.
Avoid formulaic transitions
Overusing connectives like "moreover," "furthermore," "notably," "additionally" (especially at the start of a sentence), "it is worth noting," and "on the other hand" creates a stiff, essay-like tone. Good prose doesn't need constant signposting. Let the paragraph structure do the connecting work, and use transitions only when the logical relationship between ideas genuinely needs flagging.
Don't frame by negation
The construction "It's not just X, it's Y" or "Not only X, but Y" assumes the reader holds a belief that needs correcting. This framing is almost never appropriate in an encyclopedia. State what something is; don't begin by telling the reader what it isn't.
Before: Their friendship was not merely a digital connection — it was a deeply meaningful bond that transcended the limitations of online communication.
After: They exchanged 4,000 messages over eight months and met in person twice.
Don't end sections with summaries
If a section is well-written, it doesn't need a concluding sentence that restates its core idea. Phrases like "In summary," "Overall," and "In conclusion" signal that the section didn't make its point clearly enough the first time. Similarly, avoid the formula of ending with a forward-looking claim about challenges or future prospects ("Despite these difficulties, the friendship continued to evolve").
Words to watch
Certain words and phrases appear so frequently in low-quality encyclopedic prose that they've become red flags during editing. This is not a banned word list. Context matters. But when these appear, it's worth pausing to ask whether the sentence is actually saying something, or just performing the act of saying something.
Significance words: pivotal, crucial, vital, key (as adjective), fundamental, instrumental, transformative, groundbreaking, indelible, enduring, profound, testament
Promotional words: vibrant, rich (figurative), renowned, nestled, boasts, showcases, exemplifies, stunning, breathtaking, remarkable, extraordinary, spectacular, masterful
Empty intensifiers: genuine/genuinely, truly, deeply, incredibly, remarkably, undeniable, unmistakable
Vague framing: it's important to note, it is worth noting, no discussion would be complete without, what began as X evolved into Y, reflecting a broader trend
Inflated verbs: stands as, serves as (when "is" will do), marks/represents (a turning point), underscores, highlights (as verb), fosters, garners, encompasses, cultivates
Superficial connectors: moreover, furthermore, notably, additionally (sentence-initial), on the other hand, in terms of
When one of these appears, the fix is usually to delete the word or phrase and see if the sentence still works. It almost always does. If the sentence collapses without the filler, that's a sign the sentence had nothing to say.
Voice and register
Person pages use encyclopedic voice: third person, past tense, neutral. No rhetorical questions. No direct address. No "what began as X evolved into Y" narrative framing. State what happened, in what order, with what evidence.
Episode pages can be more narrative but should still avoid editorializing. The storytelling comes from sequencing, detail, and well-chosen quotes, not from the writer's adjectives.
Quoting conventions
Direct quotes from messages and voice notes are valuable primary source material. Use them when:
- The person's exact words matter (confessions, self-descriptions, turning points)
- The phrasing is distinctive and can't be paraphrased without losing character
- The quote is short (under ~30 words)
Don't use quotes for:
- Routine factual statements that can be paraphrased
- Padding: three quotes in a row saying similar things
- Showing off the archive ("look how much data we have")
Integrate quotes grammatically into sentences where possible, rather than using blockquote templates. Save {{Blockquote}} for extended passages (2+ sentences) that need to stand alone.