How This Wiki Works¶
This wiki is GiveCare's public reference for caregiver resources, product methodology, evidence, and known limits. It is designed to be useful in two ways: caregivers can find practical resources, and partners or researchers can inspect the reasoning behind the GiveCare model.
The public standard is simple: a reader should be able to see what GiveCare is claiming, where that claim comes from, how current it is, and what should not be inferred from it.
What the wiki contains¶
The wiki has two complementary kinds of pages.
| Area | Purpose | Examples |
|---|---|---|
| Caregiver resources | Practical public resources for family caregivers | benefits, guides, organizations, condition pages |
| Research and methodology | GiveCare's model, evidence base, product rationale, safety posture, and evaluation approach | six-zone framework, crisis routing, SMS accessibility, benefits discovery, InvisibleBench |
These areas have different jobs. Resource pages should help a caregiver or navigator find a useful next step. Methodology pages should make GiveCare's reasoning visible without turning the wiki into an operations manual.
How pages are created¶
New pages usually start from one of four inputs:
- a public program, benefit, organization, or guide that caregivers can use
- research or public data that changes how we understand caregiver needs
- a product or safety decision that should be explainable to outside readers
- a question from partners, clinicians, researchers, or caregivers that deserves a durable answer
When a page is added, we look for the smallest useful public version of the answer. That usually means defining the construct, explaining why it matters, citing the strongest available sources, and stating what remains uncertain.
How we keep it current¶
The wiki is maintained as a living reference, not a one-time report. Updates may come from new research, program changes, product decisions, partner questions, or gaps found during review.
When something important changes, the work is not only to add a new page. Related pages may need to be revised so that definitions, citations, limitations, and cross-references stay aligned. If a newer source changes an older claim, the older claim should be qualified or replaced rather than left in place.
We also run structured checks for broken links, missing citations, stale resource pages, orphaned source notes, and other maintenance issues. Those checks support editorial review; they do not replace judgment.
How we use sources¶
Every significant factual claim should be traceable to a source. We prefer primary sources when they are available: government program pages, statutes, peer-reviewed research, official organization pages, and original evaluation materials.
Source quality is not one-dimensional. A peer-reviewed paper may be the right source for a clinical construct, while an Area Agency on Aging page may be the right source for a local service. The wiki should make that distinction visible so readers can judge the claim in context.
When evidence is incomplete, mixed, adapted, or preliminary, the page should say so directly. Caregiving is full of messy real-world constraints; the public record is more useful when it names those limits.
How AI is used¶
GiveCare uses assisted drafting and maintenance to keep the wiki organized: summarizing sources, checking cross-references, finding stale pages, and keeping related pages aligned. Human review is responsible for what belongs here, what emphasis is appropriate, and whether a public page is clear enough for its intended reader.
We do not publish internal prompts, private partner information, live operational metrics, or implementation details that would make safety systems easier to game. The public wiki explains the model and the rationale; it is not a full production runbook.
What readers should expect¶
Readers should expect pages that are:
- cited: major factual claims link to source pages or external references
- plainspoken: caregivers and partners should not need internal context to understand the page
- current enough to be useful: resource pages show review dates, and stale pages are flagged for refresh
- honest about limits: pages distinguish validated evidence, adapted frameworks, operational experience, and hypotheses
- connected: related concepts link to each other so readers can follow the reasoning
If a page feels like an internal note, a product runbook, or a list of implementation mechanics, it probably belongs somewhere else or needs to be rewritten for a public audience.