How We Research and Write

We prioritize primary sources: official Tor Project documentation, published research, government cybersecurity frameworks like NIST. Secondary sources must come from established institutions—the EFF, Internet Society, CISA. We cross-reference claims across multiple credible outlets. If a source is promotional, we note it. If data is outdated, we flag it.

Technical topics don't require technical jargon. We explain how Tor relays work, what onion addresses are, why encryption matters—using language accessible to someone new to these concepts. Analogies help. We avoid marketing language and hedging. Short sentences. Direct statements. When trade-offs exist, we present them honestly.

Drafts are checked for factual accuracy against source material. We verify that links work and resources still exist. We test instructions where applicable. This slows publication but catches errors before readers encounter them. Mistakes still happen; we correct them promptly and note the change.

The Tor network, threat landscape, and available tools change. We review older guides quarterly to ensure links function, advice remains sound, and new developments are reflected. When significant updates happen—new Tor releases, search engines going offline—we update relevant pages and date our changes clearly.

We don't cover illegal marketplaces or how to access them. We won't provide guides that primarily serve criminal purposes. We acknowledge when a topic is outside our expertise. We distinguish between what we know with confidence and what involves reasonable uncertainty. Readers deserve to know what we're sure about and what we're not.