Contribution & Review Policy

Influence requires the possibility of influence. MIM automatically compares publication or release dates when a new influence is submitted. If the proposed inspiration was published after the work it allegedly influenced, the contribution will be rejected. When possible, the system will suggest reversing the relationship.

Chronological validation is a mandatory rule and applies to all contributions.

Each influence relationship exists only once within the graph. If an influence has already been submitted and approved, additional submissions do not create duplicate relationships. Instead, they are recorded as supporting votes for the existing influence. This allows community consensus to strengthen existing relationships while keeping the graph clean and readable.

When an influence does not already exist in the graph, it is added to the Influence Review Log as a pending contribution. Pending influences remain separate from approved influences until they have been evaluated. Review decisions may consider chronological validity, community support, genre and media relationships, voting patterns, existing graph structure, and manual review when necessary.

Votes help establish confidence in influence relationships. To preserve the integrity of the graph, voting activity may be reviewed when unusual patterns are detected — such as large numbers of votes cast within a short period, coordinated voting campaigns, automated or bot-like behavior, or multiple accounts attempting to influence outcomes. Votes flagged for moderation review may be temporarily excluded while they are investigated. The goal is not to punish participation but to protect the accuracy of the dataset.

Creating an account is required to submit influences, vote on influences, and report suspicious contributions. Each account may cast a single vote on a given influence relationship. Multiple accounts created to manipulate the graph are prohibited. Accounts that repeatedly violate the rules may be suspended or permanently banned.

Transparency is a core principle of MIM. The Influence Review Log is publicly visible — anyone can view pending contributions, track the status of their submissions, evaluate verification decisions, and report suspicious contributions. However, public visibility does not mean public approval. Final layout decisions are determined through system rules, confidence signals, and review processes rather than popularity alone.

Adaptations are different from influences. When one work directly adapts another, the relationship is recorded as an adaptation rather than an influence — such as a novel adapted into a film, or a book into a television series. Adaptations are maintained in a separate relationship system. Because adaptation already implies a strong connection between works, adaptation relationships do not accumulate influence votes.

Works created by the same author, creator, or studio may influence one another, and such relationships are permitted within MIM. However, shared authorship alone does not automatically establish influence. Similarly, shared keywords, subjects, and themes may contribute to confidence assessment — but thematic similarity alone does not guarantee approval, as many works may share common subjects because they were influenced by the same predecessors or developed similar ideas independently.

Influence is not always easy to prove. For this reason, our review process considers multiple signals rather than relying on a single rule. Factors that increase confidence include chronological consistency, multiple independent supporting votes, same-author relationships, genre similarity, and supporting evidence. Factors that may reduce confidence include very small gaps between release dates, simultaneous publication, suspicious voting activity, and lack of supporting evidence. Works released in the same year may require additional review before approval.

Anyone with an account can add a work that is missing from the map, whether it is a book, film, series, game, or another form of media. A good submission gives the original title, the creator or creators, the year, and at least one reference link so a moderator can verify it. Submissions enter the review queue and appear on the map as pending until they are approved. Accurate, well sourced submissions are approved faster.

Before a work is added, the system checks whether it already exists, including under a different title, translation, or edition. When a match is found your submission is linked to the existing work instead of creating a duplicate. Editions and translations of the same work are grouped under one canonical entry, and books that belong to a series are grouped under that series. This keeps the map clean and makes influence connections easier to read.

Not every influence comes from another work. History, mythology, science, politics, and culture all shape creative works, so the map represents them as a small set of real-world categories. When a work draws on a real event, myth, or idea, you connect it to the relevant category and name the specific influence on the connection itself, for example a particular war, deity, or discovery. A single connection can name several specific influences at once.

Titles, authors, descriptions, and keywords should describe the work plainly and avoid copied marketing text. Free-text fields have length limits so the dataset stays consistent and fast, so keep entries concise. Moderators may edit metadata for accuracy, and once a work has been curated by hand it is protected from automatic overwrites.

MIM is a collaborative project. Every approved work and relationship contributes to a larger picture of how ideas evolve, spread, and inspire new creations across generations. By participating, contributors help create a public record of creative influence that is transparent, evidence-driven, and open to exploration by everyone.