EduTechBuddy aims to publish accurate, appropriately sourced information about education, educational technology, artificial intelligence, information technology, software, programming, and practical digital skills. The reliability of an article depends on how well its important factual statements are supported.
Verification is an editorial process, not a guarantee that every published statement will remain error-free. The extent of checking depends on the significance of a claim, the available evidence, and the potential consequences of inaccuracy. Some claims also depend on dates, software versions, geographic conditions, or other changing circumstances.
This policy explains what we check, how sources are evaluated, how technical and sensitive claims are handled, and how readers can report errors after publication. It also explains why credible evidence, accurate attribution, and acknowledgement of limitations are essential to useful technology reporting.
Our Fact-Checking Process
The following workflow describes the checks applied as relevant to the subject and article format. The goal is to determine what the available evidence supports and whether the wording accurately communicates that information.
-
Identify Claims That Need Verification
Editorial review begins by identifying material factual statements. These may include names, dates, quotations, statistics, research findings, product specifications, financial claims, legal descriptions, or consequential technical instructions. Particular care is appropriate where a claim could materially influence a reader's understanding.
Claims about product performance, cybersecurity, privacy, or potentially harmful conduct may require more extensive supporting evidence. The importance of a statement depends not only on its wording but also on how readers might use it.
-
Find Relevant Sources
We favor sources that are close to the original information and appropriate to the claim. A source should be capable of supporting the specific fact being reported rather than merely discussing the same general subject.
These may include official documentation, academic studies, public records, technical standards, product specifications, or identifiable statements from relevant parties. Relevance depends on the kind of information involved.
Reputable secondary reporting may provide context, independent findings, or additional perspectives. Repetition of one original announcement does not necessarily establish independent verification.
-
Examine Original Evidence
A source should be evaluated for what it actually establishes. Important considerations include publication date, methodology, definitions, technical conditions, limitations, and source interests. The wording of an article should reflect these boundaries.
A company announcing a feature does not necessarily prove the feature performs exactly as advertised in all circumstances. An announced capability, documented availability, and independently measured performance are different claims.
Similarly, a research abstract may not convey all the limitations described in the full study. Findings should not be generalized beyond the conditions or population supported by the research.
-
Check Names, Dates, Numbers, and Quotations
Significant factual details should be checked against relevant supporting evidence. Incorrect attribution or timing can change the meaning of an otherwise accurate account.
Direct quotations should preserve the source's actual wording. Paraphrases should preserve the original meaning and avoid suggesting a level of certainty that the source did not express.
Numerical claims require appropriate context, including the relevant period, population, definition, or methodology. Estimates, projections, and measured findings should not be conflated.
-
Seek Corroboration Where Necessary
Significant, disputed, or potentially harmful claims may require additional independent confirmation. This is particularly important when one source has a direct interest in how information is understood.
Several websites repeating the same original statement do not necessarily provide independent corroboration. The origin of repeated claims matters more than the number of repetitions.
Conflicting evidence should be evaluated rather than ignored to support a preferred conclusion. An unresolved disagreement may require qualifying a statement or acknowledging the remaining uncertainty.
-
Review Sensitive Claims and Limitations
Claims involving financial decisions, cybersecurity, privacy, legal matters, safety, or reputational harm require particular care. Errors in these areas may affect consequential reader decisions.
Important uncertainty should be acknowledged. Unsupported guarantees or claims that conceal material risks should not be presented as facts. General educational explanations should remain distinct from personalized professional guidance.
-
Make the Editorial Decision
Human editorial judgment determines whether the evidence is sufficient for publication. The conclusion should reflect the source material rather than a preferred narrative or commercial outcome.
A claim that cannot be adequately supported should be qualified, investigated further, or omitted. Removing unsupported certainty is preferable to implying that a disputed point has been conclusively established.
Not every article receives an independent external expert assessment, and editorial review must not be described as external certification. A particular type of review should only be claimed when it actually occurred.
How We Evaluate Different Sources
Source reliability depends on the information being checked. No single category of source is automatically authoritative for every subject. A source may be reliable for documenting an announcement while offering limited independent evidence about its claimed effects.
Named and Unnamed Sources
Identifiable, on-the-record sources are preferred. Anonymous posts and unverified accounts are not sufficient proof of important claims. Attributable sourcing helps readers understand how information was obtained.
Confidential sourcing is not a routine editorial practice. Exceptional consideration requires identity verification by the responsible editor, an appropriate justification for anonymity, and relevant corroboration. Anonymity does not lower the standard of evidence.
See our Unnamed Sources Policy .
Verifying Technology and Software Information
Product and technical information can change as software versions, features, prices, policies, and service availability evolve. A product claim should therefore be understood in relation to the conditions under which it applies.
- Features and Specifications
- Product descriptions should reflect the applicable version and relevant documentation. Announced, beta, discontinued, and generally available functionality should not be confused. The presence of a feature may also depend on an account or subscription.
- Pricing and Subscriptions
- Published prices may depend on billing periods, plan limits, taxes, regions, trials, and promotional conditions. Important restrictions should be identified when material to understanding the actual offer.
- Compatibility
- Technical claims may depend on operating systems, browsers, hardware, software versions, integration requirements, or configuration. Compatibility should not be described as universal when meaningful conditions apply.
- Guides and Tutorials
- Instructions should consider relevant prerequisites, known limitations, version differences, and potential security implications. Readers should be able to recognize important conditions before applying a procedure.
- Hands-On Testing
- A product or workflow must not be described as personally tested unless the testing actually occurred. Published documentation and vendor demonstrations are not equivalent to original hands-on evaluation.
- AI Capabilities
- Claims about AI accuracy, benchmark performance, reliability, or educational effectiveness require appropriate evidence. Fluent AI-generated output is not independent verification of factual correctness.
Information from company announcements may establish what a company claims or has announced. Such information should not automatically be described as independently validated performance. Where the difference matters, the article should make it clear.
Statistics, Research, and Numerical Claims
Numerical information should be presented in a way that allows readers to understand what was measured and what the result means. A percentage or benchmark without sufficient context can convey a misleading impression of certainty.
Questions We Consider
- Who produced the original data?
- When was it collected or published?
- Which population or sample was examined?
- Which definitions and methods were used?
- Is the result measured, estimated, or predicted?
- Are comparisons based on compatible conditions?
- Do important limitations affect interpretation?
Correlation must not be represented as causation without supporting evidence. Preliminary results should not be described as universally established conclusions. A finding should also not be extended beyond the circumstances investigated without appropriate support.
Statistics, survey results, product benchmarks, and research findings must not be invented or presented with unsupported precision. The article should accurately distinguish calculated results from interpretations or projections.
Higher-Risk Claims
Some statements carry greater potential consequences for readers and therefore require heightened editorial scrutiny. The appropriate level of care depends on the nature of the claim, available sources, and possible effects of inaccuracy.
High-impact claims should not be published with certainty beyond the available evidence. Meaningful uncertainty should remain visible rather than being replaced with unsupported reassurance.
Visual Evidence and Authenticity
Images, graphics, and screenshots may influence a reader's understanding of a technical claim or event. Visual material can appear persuasive even when it does not independently establish the facts being discussed.
Their origin and context matter when they are presented as factual support. Conceptual illustrations should be distinguished from records of actual events or real product interfaces.
Product Screenshots
Screenshots should be described accurately and must not misrepresent software appearance, functionality, or performance. An illustration of an interface should not be labeled as a verified screenshot.
AI-Generated Illustrations
EduTechBuddy uses AI tools to generate conceptual illustrations for education and technology content. Their role is explanatory or visual rather than documentary verification.
These illustrations must not be represented as authentic documentary photographs, verified product screenshots, or proof of actual events. Where confusion is likely, the illustrative nature should be identified.
EduTechBuddy does not use AI to draft articles, translate editorial content, summarize source documents, or automatically monitor news sources. Human editorial responsibility applies to factual claims accompanying visual content.
No Fabricated Evidence
Invented quotations, citations, studies, professional credentials, product demonstrations, and fabricated visual evidence are not acceptable. A visual representation must not be used to make an unsupported factual claim appear independently verified.
See our AI Use Policy.
Final Review and Editorial Independence
Before publication, significant unresolved issues should be evaluated according to the evidence and potential reader impact. The purpose of review is to determine whether wording, attribution, and factual support justify the claim being made.
- Supported Claim
- The available evidence provides an appropriate basis for the statement within its stated context and limitations.
- Qualified Claim
- The statement may be published with relevant limitations, attribution, or uncertainty, rather than expressed as an unrestricted fact.
- Further Research Needed
- Additional evidence is required before reaching a conclusion supported to the necessary level.
- Unsupported Claim
- The statement should be omitted or materially revised rather than presented as established fact.
Advertisers, companies, and other interested parties cannot purchase favorable factual conclusions. Commercial interests do not substitute for relevant evidence.
EduTechBuddy uses Google AdSense display advertising, does not accept sponsored editorial articles or affiliate commissions, and does not sell positive product reviews.
Paid visibility does not determine editorial ranking position.
Editorial verification and corrections should not be determined by commercial pressure. Product providers may supply relevant documents without gaining control over conclusions.
Verification After Publication
Editorial responsibility continues after an article is published. New research, software updates, changes in pricing, corrections to primary sources, or credible reader reports may justify reassessment. The original publication context remains relevant when determining whether an error occurred.
- Identify the relevant article and disputed or outdated claim, including its original context.
- Review original sources and any new supporting evidence relevant to the reported issue.
- Determine whether the issue is a factual error, incomplete context, outdated information, or a difference in interpretation.
- Correct, clarify, update, or retain the statement according to the findings, without assuming every disagreement requires a change.
- Consider a visible notice when a material correction changes the article's meaning or addresses an important factual inaccuracy.
An update reflecting a new development is not always a correction of an earlier error. Minor grammar or formatting changes may not require separate notices. The distinction matters because software and research can change after accurate reporting was published.
Dates must not be changed solely to make unchanged content appear recent. Publication and update information should reflect the actual editorial history of the material.
See our Corrections Policy .
Report an Inaccuracy
Readers may report factual errors, outdated technical details, misleading attribution, unsupported statements, or missing context. Specific references help distinguish an accuracy concern from a difference in interpretation.
Corrections: corrections@edutechbuddy.com
Please include:
- The URL of the affected article.
- The exact statement in question.
- A clear explanation of the concern.
- Reliable supporting evidence, where available.
- Contact details if follow-up is necessary.
Research and source recommendations may be sent to editorial@edutechbuddy.com .
Requests are evaluated according to relevance and evidence. An individual response or a particular editorial action cannot be guaranteed. The existence of a request does not independently demonstrate that the published claim is wrong.