Knowledge should move without losing its author, context or uncertainty.

Different contributions carry different responsibilities

Dialogue

A knowledge dialogue is an exchange intended to clarify a question, compare perspectives or identify uncertainty. It is not automatically teaching, assessment, formal advice, research participation or publication. The invitation should state the topic, audience, format, recording status, intended use and moderation responsibilities.

Teaching or learning contribution

A learning contribution explains or supports learning within a defined context. The responsible educational institution retains curriculum, teaching, assessment and award decisions within its mandate. The contributor’s expertise does not transfer those decisions to the Programme.

Assessment or specialist review

An assessment or specialist review requires an explicit mandate, criteria, competence, conflicts process, evidence record and review route. Informal comment, reputation or participation in a dialogue must not be presented as a formal decision.

Research

Research requires a defined question, method, participant and data treatment, ethics route where applicable, authorship rules and publication plan. A general expression of interest does not amount to consent, recruitment or ethical approval.

Publication

Publication requires editorial responsibility, rights to the material, attribution, disclosure of material interests, correction rules, accessibility and a controlled release decision. Publication by the Programme does not convert a contribution into institutional consensus.

Preserve authorship and provenance

Every public knowledge object should identify its title, author or responsible group, contribution type, date, version, language, sources, review status, permitted use, material changes and correction route. Where anonymity or restricted attribution is justified, the reason and responsible editorial decision should be recorded privately.

The UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science supports research integrity, attribution, multilingual knowledge and collaboration while recognising that openness can have justified limits.⁸ Those principles inform the content model; they do not require disclosure of protected, confidential or rights-restricted material.

Keep context beside the contribution

A quotation, chart, case example or extract can change meaning when separated from its source. The page should keep the relevant population, place, period, method, definition and limitation near the claim it supports. Summaries should link to the controlled source and should not become more certain than the source.

Where knowledge is adapted for another audience or language, the record should identify whether the object is a translation, transcreation, summary, excerpt or derivative explanation. Material editorial changes require a new version and review.

Make uncertainty visible

Responsible writing distinguishes:

• an observed fact from an interpretation;
• a source statement from the Programme’s conclusion;
• established knowledge from a working hypothesis;
• agreement from unresolved disagreement;
• absence of evidence from evidence of absence;
• an individual account from a general pattern.

Uncertainty is not a weakness to be removed from the design. It tells readers how far a statement can responsibly travel.

Human judgement remains responsible

Technology may help organise sources, support translation, detect missing fields or make content easier to navigate. It should not be presented as the author, final ethical reviewer or final decision-maker for a consequential knowledge or participant decision. UNESCO’s AI ethics recommendation emphasises transparency, fairness, human oversight and ultimate human responsibility.⁹

If automated assistance materially affects a public knowledge object, the responsible editor should record the tool’s role, the human review performed, material limitations and the final accountable person or body.

Accessible and multilingual knowledge

A knowledge object should be understandable in its intended form. Text should use clear structure and plain language without erasing necessary precision. Images and diagrams need meaningful alternatives; audio and video need appropriate captions or transcripts; tables need readable headers and summaries; interactive material needs keyboard and assistive-technology support.³

Language versions should preserve authorship, claim strength, uncertainty, specialist terms and corrections. An English approval does not automatically approve another language. Each version requires a named review state and a visible relationship to the source version.⁴

Disagreement without spectacle

The Programme may bring more than one responsible perspective into view. It should frame the question, distinguish evidence from opinion, disclose relevant interests and prevent disagreement from becoming personal performance. A moderated disagreement may remain unresolved. The editorial duty is to make the grounds and limits understandable, not to manufacture consensus.

No public expert roster by implication

An individual’s name, biography, image, title or contribution should appear only with verified identity, the appropriate rights and permission, an accurate role description, a defined term or object and an approved public-use record. Prior contact, a submitted biography or informal advice does not establish appointment or continuing affiliation.

Empty and disabled states

No approved knowledge objects

Programme services are introduced in defined phases. Before any public action becomes available, its responsible entity, authority, information safeguards, security controls and support route are confirmed and presented alongside it.

Expert directory unavailable

Programme services are introduced in defined phases. Before any public action becomes available, its responsible entity, authority, information safeguards, security controls and support route are confirmed and presented alongside it.

Media unavailable

Programme services are introduced in defined phases. Before any public action becomes available, its responsible entity, authority, information safeguards, security controls and support route are confirmed and presented alongside it.

Closing actions

Review research ethics and interest Read the evidence model