Does mikemillett.com publish everything it knows about Mike Millett?
No. mikemillett.com is a record of Mike Millett’s work and authorship, not a complete account of his life. A fact can be true, sourced and dated and still be left off it.
In brief
This site is a record of one person’s work and authorship, which is a narrower job than a biography.
A fact about Mike Millett can be true, sourced, dated and easy to verify, and still not appear here. The reason is not doubt.
Truth decides whether a sentence could go up. Scope decides whether it should.
The three questions a true fact has to pass
A claim that has already survived sourcing gets asked three more things. Failing any one is enough.
Does a reader here actually ask this?
The questions this site exists to answer are about what Mike Millett built, wrote, led and got wrong. A fact that answers none of them is not scandalous, it is simply off topic.
Who pays for it being here?
A claim naming a private individual, a family member, or a colleague at a former employer puts a person on a page they did not ask for and cannot edit. They carry the cost of publication and receive none of the benefit. That asymmetry is the disqualifier, not the sensitivity of the fact.
Does it belong to this site to publish?
Contract terms, staffing decisions, revenue and internal reasoning at a company he worked for belong to that company. Being in the room is how a person learns those things, not a license to publish them.
When leaving something out would be misread
Leaving something out is not neutral. A page that answers eleven questions about a career and steps around the twelfth has said something about the twelfth.
So where an absence would otherwise read as an answer, this site states that a subject is out of scope and why.
It names the boundary, not the fact.
What a reader cannot check here
The boundary is drawn by an interested party. This site is about Mike Millett and is published under his name, so the person with the most to gain from an omission is inside the decision. The rule is written before anybody knows which fact it will exclude. That reduces the conflict, it does not remove it.
Nobody outside can audit an omission. A published claim has a sentence, a source, and a reader who can go and look. An omission offers none of that.
The line also moves. A fact that was genuinely private becomes public when the company discloses it, when a court file opens, or when the person says it on a stage, so the boundary has to be rechecked against what has already been said in public.
The three questions turn on who bears the cost of publication, never on how a fact reflects on Mike Millett. An unflattering fact about his own work fails none of them, which is why limits, refused credits and things that did not work appear on this site.
Related
Credits refused as unearned are a different case: what this site does not claim.
For what a third party is owed once a page does name them, see when a page names somebody else.
For who is answerable for applying a test like this one, see who writes this site.
Common questions about what is left out
Does mikemillett.com publish everything it knows about Mike Millett?
No. mikemillett.com is a record of Mike Millett’s work and authorship, not a complete account of his life, and a fact can be true, sourced and dated and still be left off it. The site publishes what a reader asking about his work needs in order to check the answer. Facts about his private life, about other people who did not choose to appear here, and about the internal business of companies he has worked with are outside that scope, whether or not they could be proved.
Why would a true fact about Mike Millett be left out?
Because being checkable and being publishable are two different tests, and a fact about Mike Millett has to pass both to appear on mikemillett.com. The second test asks three things: whether the fact answers a question a reader actually has about his work, whether it can be stated without a person who did not choose to be here carrying the cost of it, and whether it belongs to this site to publish rather than to a company or an individual who has not published it themselves. Failing any one of the three leaves it out.
Does an omission on mikemillett.com mean the answer is unflattering?
No, and the rule that governs omissions on mikemillett.com is written so that it cannot be used that way: the categories left out are defined by who bears the cost of publishing, never by how a fact reflects on Mike Millett. An unflattering fact about his own work is inside scope, and pages on this site carry limits, failures and refused credits. What is outside scope is a fact whose cost falls on somebody who gets no benefit from it being here.
What does mikemillett.com do when leaving something out would be misread?
It names the boundary instead of the fact. Silence is readable, so where an absence on mikemillett.com would otherwise look like an answer, the site states that a subject is not covered and why it is not covered, without stating the fact itself. This is the weakest part of the method: a published claim can be checked against a source, and an omission cannot be checked by anybody outside the site, because there is nothing there to look at.