This is an editorial project with a point of view: that what Musk's companies have built deserves to be judged on the evidence. That only works if the rules are public and the site concedes when a criticism is right. Here is exactly how we rate claims, choose and check sources, and handle disputes.
Every myth carries one of six verdicts. The scale runs in both directions: a claim that turns out to be right is rated True or Mostly true, even when it is a criticism of Musk. We would rather concede a point than defend a position the evidence does not support.
The claim contradicts the available evidence. No reasonable reading of the record supports it.
The claim contains a kernel of truth, but the main assertion is wrong or the key facts are missing or distorted.
The individual facts may be accurate, but the framing, omission or comparison leaves a false overall impression.
The evidence genuinely cuts both ways, or experts reasonably disagree. We show the best case on each side instead of forcing a ruling. Shown on the site as "Contested".
The claim is broadly right but needs a caveat, qualification or update to be fully accurate.
The claim is supported by the evidence and is not materially misleading.
The verdict rates the claim, not the person. “False” means the claim is false.
We prefer primary sources. Where one exists we cite it: company filings, NASA and other agency records, regulator decisions, court documents and first-party announcements.
We also use reputable secondary reporting and, where they summarise the primary trail, Wikipedia and other reputable tertiary sources. We do not claim to use primary sources only. The Sources page is generated from our citation data and shows the real mix of domains, including the Wikipedia share, so you can judge for yourself.
Every cited URL is checked to exist before we publish. A build-time gate compares each source URL against a citation manifest produced by an existence check (does it load, is it behind a paywall or bot-block, or does an archived copy prove it once existed). A URL that is missing from the manifest, or judged fabricated, fails the build, so the site cannot ship it. Some links are marked “unverifiable” when the automated check is inconclusive; those raise a warning rather than blocking the build.
An existence check is not a fact check. It proves a source is real, not that it says what we say it does. Reading the source against the claim is a separate editorial step, and the one most likely to contain errors — which is why disputes and the corrections log exist.
Reviewed is the date a page was last checked against its sources. It is not the date of the event the page describes, and a recent date does not guarantee nothing has changed since.
As of belongs to a specific figure — a net-worth estimate, a launch count, a price. It is the date that number was accurate to. Figures come from a static dataset updated at deploy time, not a live feed, so always read the number together with its date.
Think we got one wrong? Use the comment form at the bottom of the myth in question and include a link to the source you think we missed or misread. Comments are moderated before they appear.
Want us to examine a claim we have not covered? Use the suggest-a-myth form on the Myths page.
When a dispute is right, we change the page and, for substantive fixes, log it on the Corrections page.
Each claim is checked against the best available evidence — filings, regulator and agency records, court documents and reputable reporting — and placed on a six-point scale: False, Mostly false, Misleading, Contested, Mostly true or True. The scale runs both ways: we rate criticisms of Musk and his companies as True or Mostly true when the evidence supports them, not only the claims that favour him.
No. We prefer primary sources (company filings, NASA and regulator records, court documents) and reputable reporting, and we also cite Wikipedia and other reputable tertiary sources where they summarise the primary trail. The Sources page shows the real mix of domains we cite, including how many citations point to Wikipedia.
Use the comment form on the myth page you disagree with, ideally with a link to a better or contradicting source. To raise a claim we have not covered, use the suggest-a-myth form on the Myths page. If we got it wrong, we change the verdict and record the change on the Corrections page.
It is the date we last checked that page against its sources — not the date of the underlying event. Figures that change over time carry a separate "as of" date. A recent reviewed date means the page was re-checked, not that nothing has changed since.