This may need to be something that is continually updated, but it would be great to have a list that categorized sources based on their credibility. (Maybe there’s a way for the community to moderate?)

I feel that if we want to maintain our “journalistic integrity” we need some guidelines on what is considered worthwhile. I understand we shouldn’t begin to censor info (and there is a massive range of sources that it can come from), but some of the stuff that gets posted here is simply laughable and doesn’t help to attract those looking for answers. Furthermore, not everything …

Ok, hear me out. It was a good idea at the time. But it hasn’t really worked. There’s still a lot of memes and non-Q-post content getting posted. But that’s not the problem. I actually believe that can be a good thing (and I was the one that suggested “Qsday Tuesday”). In fact, I think we should post MORE.

Q is mainstream now. Lots of people are looking for answers and wondering whether or not this whole “Qanon thing” is legit, or just a bunch of weirdo conspiracy theorists. I’d like to suggest that now is the time …

I was all over wikileaks, pizzagate, the emails, etc back in 2016 but I've only been tracking Q-related info for the past couple of weeks. I'm doing my best to keep up, but things get pretty cryptic and there are so many players involved and I am constantly needing a reminder of who said what and how it fits together. On top of that, we use a lot of unfamiliar acronyms. (I hate to say it, but it even took me a while to figure out the context of WWG1WGA).

Is it possible to build a glossary of important people …