ProCon.org is neither conservative nor liberal. We are nonpartisan, and our stated mission is "Promoting critical thinking, education, and informed citizenship by presenting controversial issues in a straightforward, nonpartisan primarily pro-con format."

While those working at ProCon.org have biases like most people, we work hard to keep bias off our sites. We have strict policies and procedures to prevent any bias from appearing in the sites. If you perceive bias on any of our sites, let us know so we can immediately address your concerns, and importantly, have a chance to correct any errors.

Additionally, we have made some graphic design decisions, such as pro v. con (instead of con v. pro), red v. green, left column v. right column, and other distinctions. While some may consider that some of these choices suggest bias to one side or the other (for example, that a column on the left suggests the political "left"), any such perceived bias is unintended.

ProCon.org does not take a position on any of the issues it explores. The world is full of organizations that give their opinions explicitly or reveal their opinions through bias. ProCon.org is different. We provide high quality and unbiased research so that our readers can make up their own minds.

No. ProCon.org is an independent nonprofit organization. We are not affiliated with any groups.

ProCon.org receives money from companies, foundations, online donors, and its Founder. You can read more about our funding sources and how this money is spent.

The information presented on our sites is intended for the public, policy makers, the media, scholars, scientists, judges, attorneys, teachers, and students.

The number of ProCon.org website sessions is tracked on our Traffic page where you can see the breakdown by month, year, and website.

July 12, 2004. Steven C. Markoff, the Chairman of ProCon.org, has been active in trying to find pros and cons of various controversial issues since 1986. He created an organization to pursue this effort, and after going through several iterations, that organization became ProCon.org on July 12, 2004. Read a detailed personal statement from Mr. Markoff about the origins and background of ProCon.org.

Perhaps. The primary focus of ProCon.org is to promote critical thinking and not necessarily to develop individual research skills. We conduct research so that our readers can more easily understand diverse perspectives on controversial issues.

Some teachers say that ProCon.org provides too much information and detracts from the development of student research skills. Other teachers say that ProCon.org provides sourced information in a relevant context that helps students to further their research skills by tracking down primary sources and pursuing new lines of inquiry.

We have provided a detailed guide on how to cite ProCon.org content. Click here to see the guide.

Yes. We generally provide the source's name and title and education along with the title of the article, and name and date of publication where that source's quotation appeared. You'll see that information in the introductory statement that precedes every pro or con or not clearly pro or con statement.

For further disclosure, we also create a biography of each source where we show the source's title, education, work experience, affiliations, contact information, position statement on the site's core question, and more. Our micro websites do not have quotations or biographies although we do provide a list of sources used.

At the bottom of each page (including this one) is information about when that page was last updated. Those references look like this: "Last updated on 2/14/2008 1:32 PM PST."

Our sources include websites, magazines, newspapers, libraries, transcripts, videos, interviews, emails, legislation, direct correspondence, and more.

Our researchers use advanced internet search strategies, scour studies, articles, etc., solicit responses from experts via email and phone, and are resourceful in general when it comes to finding the best, most clear, most well sourced, most compelling information from diverse sources. Most research is done from our office in Santa Monica although we sometimes go offsite to visit the library or attend a conference.

We start off by picking topics that are complicated and important to many Americans and that fit our mission of "Promoting critical thinking, education, and informed citizenship by presenting controversial issues in a straightforward, nonpartisan primarily pro-con format."

We prefer topics with strong emotions on both sides so that our nonpartisan presentation of facts and arguments can help people understand these issues and formulate their own perspectives in the absence of any media spin or bias.

We also cover some issues such as felon voting and milk that are often overlooked by mainstream media.

In addition, we continually ask our readers for new topic suggestions. Please send us your questions, ideas, and comments.

Strong reader demand has led to the development of our euthanasia, immigration, death penalty, and 2008 election websites as well as several individual questions on topics such as abortion, 2^nd Amendment rights, and intelligent design.

Our questions were and are developed by researching the topics, contacting related experts and organizations, and receiving feedback and ideas from readers. The questions are intended to thoroughly explore the core question and related issues.

We encourage readers to send us more or better questions, responses, and information that are more specific, more direct, and/or have better sources than those posted.

Questions, including core questions, are worded deliberately so that a Pro response is generally considered to be Pro the topic and a Con response is generally considered to be Con the topic.

We seek a diversity of responses to our questions. For example, if we receive two similar responses from two equally strong sources (for example, both 3-stars), then we will generally give the posting to the respondent who has fewer other responses posted on our sites.

We normally post up to five Pro and five Con comments per question. All comments are intended to be relevant, responsive, clear, concise, and properly sourced. They are not represented as science, but rather as a compilation of the best Pro, Con, or General Reference responses we can find on each site's core question and related issues

We have less interest in political or emotional statements than factual ones or well-formed opinions, but we sometimes post them if we feel they are particularly interesting, relevant, or thought provoking.

Although many readers want the most recent quotes and resources, we sometimes add or keep older statements for historical perspective, variety, relevance of source to debate, strength of argument, and other reasons.

Evaluating the credibility of one person's statements is difficult if not impossible, especially without knowing, for example, each person's background, training, affiliations, education, or experience.

We have therefore built theoretical expertise rankings for each ProCon.org website to help differentiate the theoretical expertise of the various sources on our sites. We have customized the star categories to each of our sites' specific content because of their different subject matter.

For example:

The Medical Marijuana site lists physicians as 4-star "KEY EXPERTS," while other sites may not even have the "Key Expert" category.

Ambassadors or diplomats to the Middle East might be 3-star "Experts" in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but probably not in the Medical Marijuana issue.

Therefore, to better understand our theoretical expertise ranking of the contributors to each site, visit that site's Theoretical Expertise Rankings page.

The Theoretical Expertise Rankings system is designed as a simple way to gauge the theoretical credibility of the responses received, although we note that sometimes, for example, a 1-star source ( ) may be better informed or more credible than a 5-star ( ) source.

Arguably, the expertise rankings have been the most difficult part of ProCon.org's presentation, in part because we have tried to make it an easy to use and useful tool for subjective and complicated questions.

Our theoretical expertise rankings are based upon the following premises:

• The courts and many people equate a level of education and knowledge with a person's theoretical expertise.
• Although ProCon.org doesn't have the resources to make complex evaluations of the expertise of each contributor to our website and such an evaluation would still contain a fair amount of subjectivity, we believe our theoretical ranking is more desirable than no ranking at all, and that it should be accurate at least 80% of the time.

Some have questioned, for instance, why we have chosen to give government reports our highest rating of five stars.

Our thinking is that government facts and statistics are generally reliable. However, what is less reliable, hence our lower rating, is when government personnel attempt to quote from such facts out of context, or worse when they misuse those facts on purpose or by accident.

For example, we generally would give our highest rating, five stars, to a government report saying that there have been 52,850 killed in auto accidents in a given time period, but we would consider it less credible for a government employee to say in a speech, “Fifty-thousand people died last year in auto accidents.” The government employee would probably receive one, three, or possible four stars, depending on the person's education and position.

We usually don't rank organizations anything other than 1-star because they are often dynamic and composed of a myriad of influences, making a ranking difficult and partially subjective.

When we do rank organizations higher -- such as the New York Times (which we rate as 2-star) -- and, when that organization prints an editorial, a quote from that editorial would carry a 2-star rating. However, if that same organization quotes an individual who we believe should be rated a 1, 3 or 4 star, that quote would carry a 1, 3 or 4 star rating.

Contributors who request that their name be withheld from their responses will be posted as anonymous. We discourage anonymous submissions because they cannot be rated on our Theoretical Expertise Rankings page.

The quotes listed in our biographies are responses to the core question posted on each topic's homepage. We contacted the individuals and organizations' principals (or spokespersons) or found a quote in a mainstream publication that answers the question. We show the dates of the quotes so the reader can put them in a historical context.

The website researcher and Managing Editor may accurately apply individual and organization’s statements to either the Pro side or the Con side, despite the author's personal opinion.

When someone has changed his/her views on a topic, we will often retain the quote used on the website and mention the position change [in a bracketed Editor’s Note] along with the date and source reflecting the change. In some cases, we will post a Pro and a Con statement reflecting both the current and prior positions if they are both deemed especially relevant to the question being asked.

When we receive responses to our questions, we generally send an email clarifying the questions to which we understood they responded. We may ask clarifying follow-up questions in an effort to keep the comments on point and clear.

For example, if a respondent claims "studies" prove a certain point, we will generally ask that source to clarify which studies he/she was referring to.

We may also ask respondents pointed and leading questions, or play "devil's advocate" in an effort to clarify or simplify the responses, Pro or Con.

"Exact Quotes" are shown in italics within double quotation marks.

Omissions are shown with ellipses (...); words added to quotes, usually for context, are shown with square brackets [words].

Although many people and organizations are occasionally careless or intentionally misleading with facts, data, and communications, we at ProCon.org believe that government and their officials should always disseminate accurate and truthful information (with the arguable exception of real national security needs).

The site's Editor will therefore comment when we believe that information put out by government officials or organizations is false, misleading, or erroneous.

We will also comment in those few cases when the contributor believes that the information they are contributing should appear to others as having the opposite view as a plain reading of the material would seem to suggest.

We don't comment on information that may be slanted, biased, or not clearly valid.

Comments by the site's Editor should be noted in red in this format:

[Editor's Note: The government report is based on the testimony of a physician whose license to practice medicine was revoked within six months of the report's release. 12/30/05]

We reserve editorial discretion in determining what materials are put on and taken off our sites. All policies are subject to change and exceptions can be approved by ProCon.org's Managing Editor or Chairman. Some decisions are presented to ProCon.org's Board of Directors.

Four reasons:

a. Copyright issues: ProCon.org duplicates select content from 3rd party sources without first acquiring copyright permission because we believe that the Fair Use doctrine permits our use of excerpted materials for non-commercial educational purposes. Reprinting entire articles or studies may push the boundary of what is allowable under copyright laws, even with the Fair Use doctrine, and may put ProCon.org at risk.

b. Subscription-based content: Much of the information we acquire is from subscription-based content that cannot be linked to from our sites. Instead of seeing the article referenced, readers would see solicitations for subscription.

c. Wanting to avoid clutter: Part of the purpose of ProCon.org is to save our readers time by finding the best research and compiling it in one place. By linking to the content referenced on the site, we would be sending our readers all over the Internet - something we want them to avoid by using ProCon.org as a resource.

d. Avoiding broken links: Increasing the number of links to 3rd party sites means we also increase the likelihood of having broken links on the ProCon.org websites. We do not have the resources to monitor and repair the thousands of new links that offsite links would require.

ProCon.org presents many sides of an issue - not just two. For instance, on the issue of medical marijuana, we ask one core question "Should marijuana be a medical option?" which has a pro response or a con response. However, we also ask over 75 other questions about medical marijuana to explore the nuance and diversity of opinions on the issue.

Each ProCon.org standard issue website contains dozens and sometimes hundreds of questions and resources about the issue. The end result is far more than a two-dimensional examination of a topic. That said, our mini and micro sites present pros and cons surrounding one core question (and no additional questions) along with some related information on the issue being discussed. Whether our mini and micro sites are therefore two-dimensional is up to the reader to determine.

Occasionally. We have limited resources and usually update biographies for material changes only.

For example, we may update biographies to to reference a major new title for a major public figure (for example, Senator Obama becoming President Obama), to confirm old position statements (for example, to see if the American Medical Association’s Con statement on medical marijuana remains current in 2009), to fix an error, or for other reasons.

For transparency, we provide the “last updated” information on each biography.

Get involved! You can help us in many different ways. Here are just a few:

1. Share your ideas for new site topics
2. Send us your feedback and opinions. To view what others have said about us, please see our Readers' comments page
3. Help update the ProCon.org Wikipedia Page. Please use reliable published sources from sites other than ProCon.org whenever possible
4. Make ProCon.org my homepage
5. Follow Us on Twitter
6. Join Us on Facebook
7. Subscribe to our free RSS feed where you can receive automatic updates of the new content posted on ProCon.org - For questions about RSS, please see our RSS Help Page
8. Link to ProCon.org from your website or your blog. For ProCon.org banner links and instructions please see our Link to us Page
9. Become a research volunteer or intern at ProCon.org. Work from home and contribute your time to a great cause.
10. Sign up to receive our free email updates
11. Save ProCon.org as one of your favorite websites using My Favorites, Google Bookmarks, Delicious, or any other bookmark service

12. Add a comment to an online discussion, message board, listserve, etc. that references ProCon.org material
13. Tell a teacher about ProCon.org and our ProCon.org for Teachers Page
14. Write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper and quote data from ProCon.org
15. Cite ProCon.org content in your school research project
16. Write to your local school board or state superintendent of education and let them know you think ProCon.org is a valuable educational resource
17. Tell your friends, family, and coworkers about ProCon.org using our Share and Email functions located at the top right corner of every page
18. Write to your elected political representative and tell them how you feel about a particular issue and reference ProCon.org data in your correspondence to make your arguments
19. Be creative. Anything else that you can do to help us out is greatly appreciated
20. Please donate $5, $10, $100 or more today to help keep ProCon.org free of charge and free of advertising.

It's easy. You can make a donation online using Visa, Mastercard, or American Express. Donations can be made in any amount from $5, $10, and $50 to $1,000 or much more.

You can also donate by check payable to ProCon.org (mailing address is 233 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 200, Santa Monica, CA 90401). In addition, you can donate by stock transfer, wire transfer, bequests, etc. Our Chairman would be more than happy to discuss those possibilities with you.

Yes. If your lesson plans or educational resources reference ProCon.org content, then please let us know and we may add them to our website in "Lesson Planning with ProCon.org" or "How Schools Are Using ProCon.org" in order to give other teachers or librarians ideas for their own plans.

To let us know, either send a link to where ProCon.org is referenced, send the lesson or resource itself as an email attachment, or provide a testimonial statement about your use of ProCon.org. Remember to include the name and location of your school.

If you are not a school or library, then please see our Terms of Use for details and protocols on reprinting ProCon.org content.

You can sign up for our email updates by clicking this link and giving us your email address. It only takes a few seconds.

You can also subscribe to our RSS feed available by clicking this link. If you need help with RSS, please visit our RSS Help Page.

You can unsubscribe to our email updates or RSS feed at any time. (In accordance with our strict privacy policy, we will not share your contact information with anyone else.)

Contact ProCon.org by email at info [at] procon.org or by phone at 310-451-9596.

Our mailing address is:
233 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 200
Santa Monica, CA 90401

You can also use our Online Contact Form to get in touch with us.

No. ProCon.org does not participate in any reciprocal link exchanges.

We do provide links in the Contact Information field of the biographies for organizations and individuals that are quoted on the website.

If you send us a great statement that we use on the website, then we will create your biography and provide a link to you in it.

No. We do not take positions or offer critiques of 3rd party information sources.

Yes. To submit a pro or con response, give general feedback, share some ideas, tell us how to improve, etc. just use the Contact Us form. We'd love to hear from you.

When someone writes to suggest that we review particular studies or articles, we normally ask for the exact comments they think are suitable for specific questions so we can more efficiently find and review them.

Perhaps, depending on the topic you choose, but such funding would not cause us to build a website on a topic that we did not believe was timely and appropriate.

For example, if we are considering five topics acceptable to ProCon.org for development and we have focused on topic #1, but a donor offers us $75,000 - $100,000 -- the approximate cost to develop a standard ProCon.org website from scratch -- or more to develop topic #5 ahead of topic #1, we would then consider moving topic #5 to the top of our development list. A mini or micro website would cost us substantially less to develop and we may therefore prioritize the creation of a mini or micro website for a smaller donation.

No. ProCon.org does not accept advertising. We exist solely on donations from people and organizations that appreciate our work.

Yes. ProCon.org has been referenced in the media over 130 times (as of Aug. 26, 2009). For information on our topics or to schedule an interview, please contact our Managing Editor Kamy Akhavan at 310-587-1407 (or by email: kamy[at]procon.org).