Editorial Policy

Editorial principles

• Accuracy before speed. Being first is less important than being supportable and useful.
• Evidence and interpretation are different. We try to identify when a statement is directly sourced and when it is analysis, estimation or judgement.
• Practical relevance matters. We prioritise information that changes understanding, eligibility, comparison or action.
• Realistic alternatives deserve fair treatment. A page should not make one option look inevitable when other credible routes exist.
• Material trade-offs should be visible. Cost, time, risk, accessibility, requirements and uncertainty can be as important as potential benefit.
• Uncertainty should not be hidden. Incomplete or contested evidence should be presented with appropriate limits.
• Corrections are part of publishing. New evidence can require an update, correction or superseding record.

Editorial independence

Factual conclusions should follow the evidence whether or not a subject, provider, advertiser, sponsor or partner has a commercial relationship with MaishaThabiti. Payment should not purchase a favourable factual conclusion, suppress a material limitation or convert a marketing claim into independent evidence.

Reviews, comparisons and recommendations

When we compare options, the basis of comparison should be relevant to the user’s decision and as explicit as practical. Rankings or recommendations should not be created from hidden commercial preferences. Where a conclusion depends on assumptions, those assumptions should be stated or recoverable from the decision logic.

Artificial intelligence

AI may assist with research workflows, classification, extraction, comparison, drafting and quality checks. AI output is not treated as authoritative evidence merely because it is fluent. Material factual claims should be grounded in appropriate sources or identified as unresolved. AI-assisted work remains subject to validation and editorial controls before publication.

Conflicts of interest

A contributor or reviewer should consider whether a financial, professional or personal relationship could materially affect editorial judgement. Where a conflict is important to the user’s interpretation, disclosure or additional review may be appropriate.

Corrections and challenges

Credible correction requests are assessed against evidence rather than the status of the person making the request. A provider is entitled to challenge an inaccurate fact about itself; it is not entitled to demand removal of accurate, decision-relevant limitations simply because they are unfavourable.

What we avoid

• Invented sources, quotations, statistics or qualifications.
• Unlabelled sponsored content presented as independent editorial judgement.
• False precision where evidence only supports a range or rough estimate.
• Sensational certainty designed to attract clicks at the expense of accuracy.
• Publishing AI-generated claims without the same evidentiary standards expected of other material.

Last updated: 6 September 2026.