How recognition is earned

Core principles

• Character is demonstrated through actions, not public relations.
• Private conduct matters alongside professional conduct.
• Fame, wealth, accomplishments, and popularity do not excuse unethical behavior.
• Honesty, fidelity to commitments, accountability, and respect for others are fundamental ethical qualities.
• Ethical recognition requires affirmative evidence, not merely an absence of negative information.
• People can learn, change, and demonstrate growth.
• The same fundamental ethical standards apply to everyone.
• Not being included does not mean someone is unethical.

The five dimensions

We evaluate conduct across five dimensions. A person does not need documented evidence in every dimension to be recognized, and a profile never implies that every dimension has been independently verified. Each profile states, dimension by dimension, what was documented and what was not assessed.

Eligibility

A person must satisfy all of the following to be recognized:

1. Be living. We verify this with a dated source before publication and at each review.
2. Be a recognizable public figure within an eligible category: actor, athlete, or astronaut.
3. Have at least one meaningful, independently documented example of positive ethical conduct.
4. Satisfy the published standards for personal and professional integrity.
5. Have no substantiated disqualifying misconduct under the criteria below.
6. Pass a documented editorial review with a recorded decision.

For astronauts, the category includes professional astronauts selected by a national agency, commercial crew members, and private spaceflight participants. Having flown in space makes a person eligible for the category. It is never, on its own, grounds for recognition.

Evidence requirements

Every example on a profile must be supported by at least one source that a researcher actually retrieved and read, and that a reviewer approved. For every source we record the URL, publication title, publisher, publication date, date accessed, the relevant excerpt or summary, the conduct it documents, the ethical dimension, the evidence type, whether it is independently corroborated, and the researcher's notes.

We prefer, in order: primary sources (official records, the organization's own documents, on-the-record statements by named people); contemporaneous documentation; credible independent reporting; and verifiable public records. Self-reported accounts, including memoirs and interviews, are recorded as such and rated accordingly.

We do not: fabricate or infer citations; imply private knowledge; treat anonymous accusations as established facts; publish unverified private relationship allegations; or fill evidentiary gaps with assumption. A profile with insufficient affirmative evidence remains unpublished, however well regarded the person may be.

On charitable giving. Donations are easy to publicize and hard to assess. We weigh sustained, hands-on commitment, personal sacrifice, and leadership above headline amounts, and we distinguish a person's own conduct from the activities of organizations that carry their name.

Review rubric

Reviewers record a qualitative assessment on five criteria. We deliberately do not assign a numerical character score: character is not a quantity, and a number would invite exactly the kind of ranking this project exists to avoid.

A single exceptional instance of moral courage with strong evidence can meet the standard. A long record of modest, poorly documented good works may not. Reviewers explain their reasoning in a written rationale that is published with the profile.

Review process

Every record moves through three internal stages. Only the third is public.

1. Nominated. A person has been submitted for possible consideration, by a member of the public or by our own research pipeline. Nominations are private and are never published, whatever the outcome.
2. Under review. A researcher is gathering and recording evidence, verifying living status and identity, and checking for substantiated disqualifying misconduct. Pending reviews are private.
3. Recognized. A reviewer has applied the rubric, recorded a decision with a written rationale, and an administrator has published the profile. Publication is blocked by the system unless the decision, rationale, living-status verification, and reviewer-approved evidence are all in place.

Software, including AI tools, may help identify candidates, organize evidence, summarize sources, and flag conflicting information. It never determines a person's ethical character and never publishes a recognition. A named person makes every decision and is accountable for it in our audit trail.

Disqualifying misconduct

A person is not eligible while there is substantiated misconduct of the kinds below. "Substantiated" means established by a court judgment, a finding by a regulator, governing body, or employer investigation, a credible admission by the person, or multiple independently corroborated accounts from named sources. An allegation, a lawsuit that has not been decided, an anonymous accusation, or tabloid reporting is not a finding, and we do not treat it as one.

• Violence, abuse, or exploitation of another person.
• Sexual misconduct or harassment.
• Fraud, corruption, or material dishonesty in professional or financial dealings.
• Cheating or dishonesty that corrupts the integrity of the person's profession, such as doping or match-fixing.
• Abuse of power over colleagues, subordinates, or people dependent on the person.
• A sustained pattern of deception toward partners, the public, or colleagues.

Because people can change, a substantiated matter does not permanently disqualify someone. Reviewers consider the seriousness of the conduct, the time elapsed, whether the person took responsibility, made amends, and changed course, and whether the later record demonstrates sustained integrity. Where a recognized person's record includes an acknowledged mistake, the profile says so plainly.

Allegations that are not findings are recorded privately so that reviewers can revisit them if the record changes. They are never published, and they are not evidence.

Research methodology

For each candidate, researchers:

1. Resolve identity against authoritative sources (for astronauts, agency biographies) so that exclusions, duplicates, and evidence are attached to the right person.
2. Verify living status with a dated source.
3. Search for independently documented examples of conduct in each dimension, retrieve and read every source, and record it with the fields listed above.
4. Search specifically for substantiated misconduct and record any concerns, with their status, in the private record.
5. Draft examples, a dimension-by-dimension summary, and a professional biography, separating fact from interpretation.
6. Hand the record to a reviewer, who checks the sources, approves or rejects each one, applies the rubric, and records a decision.

Each profile displays the dates on which its sources were accessed and the date of its most recent review. Profiles are re-reviewed periodically and whenever credible new information reaches us.

Portraits. We use only appropriately licensed photography, with the credit and license shown on the profile, or a monogram placeholder where no licensed portrait is available.

Suspension and withdrawal

Recognition can be reaffirmed, suspended, or withdrawn. If credible information suggests a recognized person may no longer meet the standard, an administrator flags the profile for reassessment and may suspend it (removing it from public view) while a reviewer re-examines the record. A withdrawal is recorded with a written rationale. We notify the subject where we can, give them an opportunity to respond, and correct any factual error we made along the way. Suspended and withdrawn profiles are not published, and we do not publish the reasons.

What recognition means, and does not

• Recognition means the person met our published standard on the evidence available at the time of review. It is not a guarantee of future conduct and not an endorsement of their views, work, or associations.
• Absence from the directory is not a finding. Most eligible people have simply not been reviewed, and many fine people have no public record of the kind our standard requires.
• We never imply that people who are not listed have behaved unethically, and we do not publish who has been nominated, declined, or excluded from our scope.
• We distinguish established facts from interpretation, and we publish the sources so you can judge them.
• We avoid soliciting or publishing invasive personal information or intimate details, and we avoid publishing sensitive personal information unrelated to a legitimate public-interest assessment.

If you believe something on this site is wrong, use the corrections and appeals process. We keep records supporting every editorial decision.