Who is responsible
The named contributor and the reviewing editorial desk share responsibility for accuracy. A collective desk byline means the page was collaboratively developed or substantially reviewed. It does not remove accountability.
Matching the source to the claim
Verification begins by asking what kind of evidence could genuinely establish the claim. Laws should be checked against official texts or authoritative guidance; company performance against filings or attributable statements; research findings against the study itself where possible; public events against primary records and multiple reliable reports.
Source popularity is not the same as source quality. Screenshots without provenance, recycled social posts, anonymous aggregators and promotional copy require independent confirmation.
Our checking process
- Identify the factual statements central to the headline and conclusion.
- Locate the strongest reasonably available sources for those statements.
- Check names, roles, dates, places, chronology and technical terminology.
- Distinguish reported allegation, verified fact, expert interpretation and editorial opinion.
- Look for material context that could change a reader’s understanding.
- Use cautious language when evidence cannot support certainty.
Statistics, quotations and media
Numbers should retain their unit, period, population and meaningful limitations. Comparisons should use compatible definitions. Quotations should preserve meaning, be attributed and not be reconstructed from memory or generated by a tool.
Images and captions must not imply that an illustrative or synthetic scene documents a real event. Where a visual is representative rather than documentary, it should be treated accordingly.
Developing stories
Fast-moving information may change after publication. A developing article should state what is known, what remains unconfirmed and when the information was checked. We may update a page as reliable information emerges and add a note when an update materially changes the story.
Health, finance, law and safety
High-impact subjects require stronger evidence and careful boundaries. General information must not be presented as individual diagnosis, legal representation, financial suitability or a substitute for qualified professional advice. Unsupported promises, miracle outcomes and universal prescriptions are not acceptable.
Reader challenges and corrections
Readers can challenge a factual claim through the Contact page. A useful request identifies the page, exact statement, reason it appears wrong and the strongest available supporting evidence. Good-faith challenges are assessed on evidence, not the identity or popularity of the person raising them.