1. Scope

Qazaq Lens addresses specific recurring stereotypes or misconceptions about Kazakhstan. It is not a general news service, advocacy campaign or substitute for specialist scholarship.

2. How topics are selected

A topic enters the library when it meets at least two of these criteria: it recurs in international media, travel writing, search discussions or reader submissions; it has shaped how outsiders interpret Kazakhstan; it compresses a complex historical, geographic or cultural question into a memorable shortcut; or it can be tested against traceable evidence. We prioritise claims with high public impact and a realistic evidence path, not claims simply because they are controversial.

Selection is not a popularity ranking and the library does not claim to measure every conversation. Each article publishes its own selection rationale, while the editor records whether the trigger was a recurring stereotype, a viral media reference, an outdated fact, a reader question or a gap in accessible English-language context.

3. Source hierarchy

  • Primary: original statements, official documents, original media or data.
  • Academic: peer-reviewed research and recognized scholarship.
  • Official: public institutions used for their own policies, legal facts or published data.
  • Journalistic: established reporting used for events, interviews and documented reactions.
  • Background: reference material used only for low-dispute orientation.

Anonymous social posts, fan accounts, AI output and search snippets are not evidence. A government source can establish what a government says or what the law states; it is not automatically treated as neutral evidence for contested political interpretation.

4. Claim ledger, not a decorative bibliography

Every substantial claim receives a stable ID such as C1. Each claim must cite at least two sources from different publishers. The content schema rejects missing source IDs, duplicate IDs and claims supported only by one publisher. The public article shows the same ledger readers can inspect.

5. Independence is evaluated at publisher level

Two articles that merely repeat the same wire report are not treated as strong independent confirmation. The build can verify different publishers; the editor must still check whether the underlying reporting is genuinely independent.

6. Claim types

  • Fact: independently checkable and not seriously contested.
  • Interpretation: a reasoned reading, explicitly presented as such.
  • Reported views: evidence that named people or groups expressed different positions—not proof of national consensus.
  • Disputed: credible sources disagree and the disagreement remains visible.

7. Review status

Public beta means the article passed an internal claim-by-claim source audit but has not yet received independent human review. Independently reviewed is used only when at least one named or pseudonymous external reviewer is recorded in the article metadata.

8. AI use

AI tools may help structure text, improve language or flag inconsistencies. They are never cited as sources and do not count as independent reviewers. Every factual claim must resolve to human-inspectable sources.

9. Corrections

The correction form accepts reports without an account. Substantive corrections are added to the public change history. A review date changes only after the text has actually been checked against its sources.

10. Sensitive identity topics

Articles about ethnic, religious or minority communities require additional review from someone with relevant lived or subject expertise before they can be marked independently reviewed. The project avoids presenting one person's experience as representative of an entire group.

11. Conflicts and limitations

Funding or institutional relationships that could affect editorial judgment must be disclosed. At present the project is independent, unfunded and solo-maintained. Readers should treat it as a transparent starting point, not the final authority on Kazakhstan.