Skip to content

Research & Verification

How MaishaThabiti selects sources, verifies claims, handles freshness, conflicts and incomplete evidence.

Research quality depends on matching the source to the claim, preserving enough context to audit the claim later, and checking whether the information is current enough for the decision being made.

Source hierarchy

  • Official laws, regulations, government agencies and recognised authorities for regulated facts, public rules, eligibility and official requirements.
  • Universities, training institutions, professional bodies and providers for facts about their own programmes, services, fees, locations and requirements.
  • Original research, datasets and technical publications for empirical claims, trends and measured outcomes.
  • Credible independent reporting and specialist sources for context, scrutiny and developments not established by a provider itself.
  • Community experience and informal sources where lived experience is relevant, clearly separated from authoritative or verified fact.

Verification is claim-specific

A source is not simply “good” or “bad” in the abstract. The relevant question is whether it is appropriate for the claim. A provider can reliably state that it offers a course, but that does not independently prove that the course is the best option. A news article may accurately report a policy announcement, but the final regulation is usually stronger evidence of the rule itself.

Corroboration

For consequential claims, we prefer direct authority or corroboration where practical. Corroboration is especially useful when a source is promotional, ambiguous, old, incomplete or reporting information second-hand. Repetition across many websites does not by itself prove that the underlying claim is true if all of them originate from the same weak source.

Freshness and time-sensitive information

Fees, deadlines, office holders, vacancies, programme availability, admission requirements, financial rates, legal thresholds and similar facts can change quickly. Where possible, the evidence record keeps publication or access context so that a user or editor can judge whether re-verification is needed.

When sources conflict

Conflicting sources should be investigated rather than silently averaged. The conflict may reflect different dates, jurisdictions, definitions, programme variants or genuine disagreement. If the conflict cannot be resolved confidently, the limitation should remain visible.

When evidence is incomplete

We prefer an explicit gap to a fabricated answer. A subject may remain useful while some fields await targeted research. Missing information should be treated as a research task, not as permission to invent a plausible value.

Provider-submitted information

Providers and institutions may help correct factual information about themselves. Such information is assessed in context. A provider’s participation does not convert its promotional claims into independent evidence and does not give it control over comparisons with alternatives.

User verification before action

Even a well-sourced page can become outdated after publication. For consequential or time-sensitive decisions, users should confirm the current position with the institution, regulator, provider or other body responsible for the fact.

Last updated: 6 September 2026.