Civic-data organizations & nonprofit research
Make a dataset useful beyond the team that prepared it. This pathway supports source discovery, methods documentation, public indicators, and evidence translation while keeping each organization’s position and role visible.
Show how the record was made
A dataset proposal should identify the original publisher, collection period, geographic coverage, unit of observation, definitions, and known exclusions. State whether the data are original records, a derived table, estimates, or a third-party compilation.
Include a stable source link and a reuse-rights reference. A methods note should explain transformations, joins, missing values, and changes in definitions that affect comparisons. Do not treat a downloadable file as proof that redistribution is permitted.
Separate evidence from advocacy
A nonprofit’s analysis, a public agency’s filing, and a community organization’s lived context may all be useful, but they answer different questions. Label the evidence class and disclose relevant organizational positions, funding relationships, or direct involvement.
A contribution can challenge a claim or expose an unresolved question without the platform adopting the contributor’s policy position. Review approval records a workflow decision; evidence status is displayed separately.
Connect resources rather than create duplicate claims
Propose a bounded research question, submit a correction, or associate a reviewed contribution with an existing Regional Intelligence record. New regional associations enter their own review queue and do not change Atlas data.
Approved organizations can request a collection of public resources. Collections retain the original issuer and date for each item. They are described as resources contributed or identified through an organization, not as an endorsement or an organization’s official position unless the original source establishes that.
What approval does and does not mean
Participation is not endorsement of this project, any organization, or data-center development. Institutions may submit evidence and context, but they cannot execute or publish Team_Compute articles. Article publishing remains owner-only.
Applications, source submissions, regional associations, events, and resource collections have separate review states. A received request is not an approved relationship. An approved workflow state is not a measure of evidence quality. Public material retains its issuer, date, geography, limitations, review context, and a correction route.