Research phase · Sources and first-hand accounts are being reviewedRead the research framework
INSIDEMECCA
Menu
JoinShare Your Story

Project accountability

Anonymity is not immunity from scrutiny.

The public may not know the project lead's name at this stage. Readers should still be able to see who established the project in relevant terms, what interests may affect the work, how conclusions are tested and how errors can be challenged.

Public disclosure

What readers can hold the project to.

01

Identity and experience

Inside MECCA was established by a former MECCA employee who worked in the business for more than a decade and left in 2025. The project lead is not publicly named during the research and production stage because of privacy and safety concerns.

02

What anonymity does not permit

Anonymity does not remove editorial responsibility. Claims must still be sourced, limitations published, conflicts disclosed, corrections recorded and affected parties given a fair opportunity to respond.

03

Relevant perspective

The founder's former employment and the project's advocacy purpose are relevant perspectives and potential sources of bias. They are disclosed here so readers can evaluate the work with that context.

04

Investigation and campaign

The investigation tests factual propositions. The campaign may advocate for reform, but advocacy does not establish an allegation, pattern or finding. Unsupported propositions must be narrowed, held or rejected.

05

Funding and influence

No outside funder or sponsor is identified on this website. If funding, sponsorship or material in-kind support is accepted, the source, relevant conditions and any potential editorial conflict will be disclosed.

06

MECCA's participation

MECCA and any person materially criticised will be offered the substance of proposed findings, reasonable time to respond and a practical channel for providing context, denials or supporting material.

No predetermined result

The evidence may support several outcomes.

The working question is whether MECCA's public workplace commitments were implemented consistently in practice. It is a question to test, not a conclusion already reached.

  1. Available evidence supports a recurring organisational pattern.
  2. Evidence supports a narrower issue limited by place, role or period.
  3. Accounts are important but cannot be corroborated sufficiently for a public finding.
  4. Evidence is mixed, contradictory or supports a reasonable alternative explanation.
  5. The proposition is not supported and no adverse finding is made.

Challenge and correction

Readers, contributors and MECCA can contest the work.

Evidence challenge

Identify the statement, the evidence said to contradict it and the correction or qualification requested.

Conflict disclosure

Raise a relationship, interest or advocacy position that may reasonably affect an editorial decision.

Correction record

Material factual corrections are logged with what changed, when it changed and why.

Raise a concernRead the methodologyEditorial standards