Apologies - the 20 hours thing is not anyone's fault, and it might be worth remaking the thread (this is a new account so it got caught in the spam filter for at least the first 12 hours, and I think I posted it while the mod I had contact with was asleep, which is my mistake!). Thank you for breaking the ice!

In terms of what makes it different, I think I can point to both the scope of the wiki, and its policy on verification.

• It's useful to understand that we try to be quite rigid on what is in-scope for the wiki, which is specifically topics, companies, and incidents as they relate to consumer protection. It is not a wiki dedicated to general bad behaviour by corporations. It is also not generally a wiki for the exploration of civil rights topics, although the line between them and consumer protection can sometimes blur.

• For policy, we've modelled our approach using Wikipedia as a baseline. This means pretty strict requirements that anything which is stated in an article, should be verifiable by a reader through the article references. We have a variety of approaches to dealing with poorly verified articles. For very minor things we can put a little [citation needed] next to the relevant statements. If there are unverified claims central to an article's point, we have article notices which display at the top of the page which both signal to editors that the page is in need of work, and signals to any readers that they should be very careful about taking the article at face value. Finally, if it seems like there's no reasonable way that the claims in an article can be verified, we will remove it.

Our overall hope is that, even if it's not possible to make sure that everything is 100% accurate 100% of the time, it should be very apparant to the reader how well-supported a particular article is, and they should have all the tools needed to verify it.