On this site, publishing works like a transaction. An article goes out at 0 confirmations: it is readable, it is in the mempool, and nothing about its status is final. What makes it legitimate is not our imprimatur — it is the readers'.
Every registered reader can confirm an article (like) or reject it (dislike). The net balance is the height: the article's position in the chain of consensus. Reach the confirmation threshold and the article enters the postchain, the canonical feed. Fall into sustained negative consensus — a balance at or below zero for several consecutive days, never a single spike — and the article is orphaned: still readable forever, still citable, but out of the feed.
Orphaning is where most sites would put a moderator's mood. Here it is a rule with three safeguards: hysteresis (days, not hours), a minimum number of votes, and spike detection — a burst of rejections from freshly-registered accounts freezes the process for human review, because brigading is a when, not an if.
Corrections work the same way as rebroadcasts. When we fix an error, the article goes out again at 0 confirmations with a new version number, and the correction log is public. The consensus starts a new cycle. That is the deal: we do not ask you to trust the desk — we ask you to confirm.