At WordPatch.co.uk, accuracy and trust are the foundation of everything we publish. Our Fact-Checking Policy sets out the standards we apply before any article goes live, the sources we rely on, and how we handle verification across all content types. This policy applies to every editorial piece, including news, reviews, guides, explainers, opinion pieces and interviews, regardless of format or length. It is overseen by our Standards & Fact-Checking Lead, Thomas Ellery, who ensures consistent application across the publication.
What we verify before publication
Our editorial team checks the following categories of information for accuracy before publication. This list is not exhaustive but represents the areas most commonly subject to verification:
- Book release dates, author information and publisher claims – cross-checked against official publisher catalogues, distributor records and direct author statements.
- Software features, pricing and tool claims – verified through product documentation, official release notes, hands-on testing and official company announcements.
- Grammar claims, language rules and education-related claims – sourced from recognised style guides, academic sources and authoritative reference works.
- Copyright and licensing issues – reviewed using publicly available registration databases, rights documentation and direct confirmation from rights holders where necessary.
- AI tool claims and automation-related statements – checked against developer documentation, independent benchmarks and our own testing, with clear labelling of any speculative elements.
- Legal disputes, allegations and brand partnerships – verified through official court documents, company filings, press releases from all parties and direct contact with relevant spokespeople.
- Financial claims – checked against annual reports, publicly filed accounts and independent financial data sources.
- Stories involving minors, public safety or privacy concerns – reviewed by Thomas Ellery before publication, with particular attention to identifying details, consent and legal restrictions.
Source hierarchy
We apply a clear hierarchy when assessing sources, giving greatest weight to primary and authoritative material. Our preferred sources in order of reliability are:
- Official publisher information (catalogues, press releases, direct statements)
- Author statements made in verified interviews or official channels
- Public records (company registers, court filings, government databases)
- Company statements and product documentation
- Software release notes and changelogs
- Academic or educational sources (peer-reviewed journals, recognised textbooks)
- Direct interviews conducted by our team
- Press releases, review copies and first-hand product testing by our staff
- Verified public social media posts from official accounts
- Credible publishing, media and technology reporting from established outlets
A full explanation of our sourcing standards, including how we evaluate anonymous and secondary sources, is available on our Sources & Standards page.
Rumours, speculation and anonymous sources
We never present rumours or speculation as fact. Any content that includes unverified claims, industry gossip or hypothetical scenarios must be clearly labelled as such, using language such as “according to reports”, “it is speculated” or “some industry observers suggest”. Anonymous sourcing is avoided unless there is a clear editorial reason – for example, to protect a whistleblower or a vulnerable individual – and any anonymous information is verified through at least two independent sources before we consider publishing. Decisions to use anonymous sources are made by Thomas Ellery in consultation with the Editor-in-Chief.
Review of sensitive articles
The Standards & Fact-Checking Lead reviews all articles that touch on sensitive subjects before publication. This includes but is not limited to legal disputes, allegations of misconduct, stories involving minors, public safety issues and any content that could affect an individual’s reputation or privacy. Articles flagged during planning or written by freelance contributors are also subject to this additional review layer.
Reader reports and corrections
We encourage readers to report potential inaccuracies by emailing factcheck@wordpatch.co.uk. Every report is reviewed by Thomas Ellery or a delegated fact-checker. If an error is confirmed, we follow the process set out in our Corrections Policy, which includes updating the article, adding a correction notice and logging the change. Significant errors are also noted in our editorial records for ongoing quality improvement.
Related policies
This Fact-Checking Policy forms part of a broader commitment to editorial integrity. Please also read our Editorial Policy for our overall approach to content, and Our Team page for details of the staff responsible for implementing these standards.