Editorial standards
Editorial Policy
Accuracy, context, independence and accountability guide our work.
Last updated:
On this page
Purpose and perspectiveAccuracy, sourcing and contextFormats and authorshipFairness and responseInterviews, sources and quotationsReviews and buying adviceAI assistance and human responsibilityIndependence and conflicts of interestCorrections and accountabilityTrust is earned through the decisions behind an article: which questions are asked, which evidence is used, how uncertainty is handled and what happens when something is wrong. These principles guide ITBank’s editorial work.
Purpose and perspective
We aim to make African technology understandable, useful and relevant to readers within the continent and around the world. We consider local conditions rather than assuming that a product, policy or business model works the same way in every market.
Useful coverage should help a reader understand a subject, evaluate a decision or take an informed next step. Publication volume is not a substitute for accuracy or substance.
Accuracy, sourcing and context
We prefer primary documentation, direct evidence and appropriately attributed reporting. Important factual claims should have support readers can assess. Estimates, interpretations and unresolved questions must be distinguishable from established facts.
Country-specific reporting should identify the relevant market or jurisdiction. Price comparisons should identify the currency, date, availability and source. Proposed policies must be distinguished from enacted measures. We do not invent statistics, quotations or test results to complete a story.
Formats and authorship
News reports describe verified developments. Analysis interprets evidence. Opinion presents an attributed viewpoint. Guides explain a process, and buying advice evaluates suitability. Sponsored material must be clearly identifiable.
Bylines identify the individual contributor or the collective ITBank Editorial desk. Biographies should accurately describe relevant experience. Material awaiting editorial approval is labeled accordingly; preparation with AI assistance does not constitute human approval.
Fairness and response
We aim to represent relevant evidence fairly and avoid misleading omissions. When preparing material that makes significant critical claims about an identifiable person or organization, the editorial process should include a reasonable opportunity to respond, taking account of the circumstances and public interest.
Fairness does not require treating unsupported claims as equivalent to well-supported evidence. An editorial conclusion should explain the basis on which it rests.
Interviews, sources and quotations
Quotations must reflect a real source and preserve the speaker’s meaning. Transcription and editing should not manufacture statements or change their substance. Illustrative scenarios and composite examples must be identified as such.
Source confidentiality requires a deliberate agreement and a suitable process. An ordinary enquiry channel should not be assumed to provide anonymity or secure source protection.
Reviews and buying advice
A hands-on review must explain what was tested and the relevant conditions and limitations. A documentation-based buying guide must make its method clear. Product access, gifts, travel support and other material relationships should be disclosed where they could affect a reader’s assessment.
Scores require an explained method and supporting evidence. Payment, affiliate commissions or free product access must not determine an editorial rating or recommendation.
AI assistance and human responsibility
AI tools may assist with organization, transcription, drafting or editing. Material assistance should be disclosed where it meaningfully shapes the work. Outputs require source checking and editorial judgement; fluency is not evidence of accuracy.
AI-generated material must not be presented as a real interview, first-hand experience or a product test. Human approval remains necessary before work is represented as having completed editorial review.
Independence and conflicts of interest
Editorial decisions should serve readers. Contributors should disclose financial, employment, personal or other material interests connected to their subject. An appropriate response may include disclosure, reassignment or a decision not to publish.
Advertisers and sponsors do not purchase a favorable conclusion, a positive review or the suppression of legitimate criticism. Commercial relationships are governed by our Advertising & Affiliate Policy.
Corrections and accountability
We address material factual errors through visible corrections and update dates. Where evidence no longer supports an article’s central premise, an explanatory withdrawal may be appropriate. See our Corrections Policy for how to raise a concern and how changes are recorded.