The topic test
A WeirdWeek topic has to pass three questions before it becomes a page. First, does the object or system have a real job? Second, can a reader learn something beyond the novelty? Third, are there public references or durable facts that let the article be checked later?
This is why the site avoids pure lists of strange facts. A list can be fun, but it often collapses into thin content. WeirdWeek articles are built around the explanation: what constraint created the odd form, what tradeoff kept it useful, and what broader habit it teaches.
How stories are structured
Most articles use a simple pattern: begin with the visible oddity, restore the working context, explain the design logic, and end with a useful lesson. For example, runway numbers are not just airport trivia; they are a compact navigation language. Round manhole covers are not just a puzzle answer; they are maintenance safety made visible.
Issue pages work differently. They collect related stories and add an editor's note so readers can see a pattern across several examples. That makes the archive more than a table of contents.
Sources and corrections
Articles use public references such as museums, government agencies, encyclopedias, engineering explainers, and official documentation when available. Source boxes explain where the baseline facts came from and what the editorial angle adds.
If a reader spots an error, the contact page asks for the page URL, the specific claim, and a supporting reference. Corrections are prioritized over topic pitches because trust matters more than volume.
Advertising boundaries
The site may use display advertising, but advertising does not decide what gets published. WeirdWeek does not create empty pages for ad inventory, does not ask readers to click ads, and does not accept paid placement disguised as editorial curiosity.
The practical standard is simple: if a page would be embarrassing to publish without ads, it should not be published with ads.