Since our inception in 2004, editorial independence has been the core pillar of our mission. This document outlines the ethical standards and guidelines all Wccftech editorial staff and contributors are required to adhere to. These policies are designed to protect our sources, maintain journalistic integrity, ensure transparency, and equip our readers to make informed choices.
IPSO Regulation & Editors' Code of Practice
Wccftech is a member of the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO), which regulates the UK newspaper, magazine and digital news industry.
We are committed to complying with the Editors' Code of Practice in full. All of our editorial staff, freelancers and contributors are required to follow the Editors' Code in addition to the Wccftech‑specific guidelines set out on this page.
1. Editorial Independence & Conduct
Our editorial content is created free from undue influence, bias, or precondition.
- No Preconditions: We do not accept any preconditions for a story that would compel us to support a specific view or say certain things.
- Gifts & Benefits: Members of our editorial team will not accept gifts (including food and drinks) more than $70 in value.
- Travel & Accommodations: We do not generally accept paid travel or accommodations (e.g., flights, hotels, rental cars) from companies we cover. In the rare event that we do, we will disclose the circumstances clearly in any resulting coverage.
- Professional Appearances: Our staff may appear as experts on various media outlets. These appearances are not endorsements. We may accept reimbursement for travel expenses for these appearances, provided the media outlet is not affiliated with a company we cover.
- Crowdfunding: Staffers are permitted to back video game Kickstarter campaigns at the minimum level required to acquire the product. No disclosure is needed for this. Contributions to Patreon campaigns for industry members are permitted but must be disclosed on the staffer's profile page and within any related coverage.
- Whistleblower Conduct: Wccftech staff are encouraged to raise concerns about potential breaches of this policy or the Editors' Code. No employee, contractor or contributor will face any disciplinary action or detriment for:
- refusing, in good faith, to act in a way they believe would breach the Editors' Code; or
- making appropriate use of IPSO's complaints or whistleblowing channels.
2. Conflicts of Interest
We avoid conflicts of interest and disclose them transparently when they are unavoidable.
- Coverage Restrictions: Editorial team members are prohibited from covering companies (1) in which they have a financial investment, (2) that have employed them previously, or (3) that employ their spouse, partner, or someone else with whom they have a close personal relationship.
- Disclosure: Any potential conflict of interest, including prior employment affiliations or personal investments (including those planned within 30 days), must be disclosed on the staff member's profile page and within the text or footnotes of any related article they publish.
- Personal Investing: Reporters may invest in companies, but any financial interest must be openly declared in every story they write about that company. Staff must not use, or enable others to use, non‑public, price‑sensitive information obtained through their work at Wccftech for personal gain (for example, trading in securities or cryptoassets based on unpublished information).
3. Sourcing & Fact-Checking
Accuracy and truth are paramount, and the protection of our sources is sacrosanct.
- Paying Sources: It is our policy not to pay sources for information. On rare occasions, we may contract with a source as a co-creator of content.
- Anonymous Sources: Anonymous sources must prove their identity to a senior editor to be cited. A reporter's promise of anonymity to a source (on background, off the record, or on the record) is binding and will not be violated. We protect the identity of our sources with strict standard operating procedures.
- Fact-Checking Process: All stories undergo a "four-eyes" process, being read and fact-checked by at least two senior staff members before publication. For stories involving forecasts, projections, or leaks, fact-checking is conducted on a best-efforts basis and will be clearly tagged based on their calculated authenticity.
4. Rumor Accuracy & Confidence Standards
At Wccftech, we recognize that the technology industry moves faster than official press releases. Our readers value early insights, leaks, and supply chain reports. However, we believe it is our ethical obligation to distinguish between verified facts and speculative information.
To ensure transparency, we utilize a proprietary editorial tool known as the Wccftech Rumor Assessment. This tool provides a clear, quantified confidence score, ensuring that our readers, and the algorithms that index our content, understand our editorial stance on a rumor's validity before reading the headline. We do not present speculation as fact; we present it as a probability.
How We Calculate Confidence: Our editorial team assigns a final percentage score based on a rigorous, multi-factor vetting process. This isn't a guess; it's a calculated average of four key criteria, as seen in our Detailed Breakdown:
- Source Reliability: We evaluate the track record of the original source. A known leaker with a history of accuracy scores higher than an anonymous, first-time poster on a forum.
- Corroboration: We look for independent verification. A rumor supported by multiple unrelated sources (e.g., a supply chain log and a driver update) receives a higher score than a single-source claim.
- Technical Plausibility: We assess the technical feasibility of the claims. Does the rumored spec align with known architectural roadmaps and engineering principles?
- Timeline Match: We check for consistency with expected industry timelines and product cycles.
The Confidence Scale: Each rumor is assigned a final score that places it into one of five distinct confidence tiers, clearly defined in our assessment legend:
- 81-100% - Highly Likely: Multiple reliable sources have confirmed this information. We treat this as "almost confirmed."
- 61-80% - Probable: There is strong evidence supporting the claim, though final confirmation is pending.
- 41-60% - Plausible: The rumor is supported by reasonable evidence and aligns with known facts, but lacks definitive proof. This is considered "likely accurate" but not guaranteed.
- 21-40% - Questionable: Some concerns remain about the source or the details of the claim. We advise caution.
- 0-20% - Unlikely: The rumor lacks credible sources or contains significant inconsistencies. We report on it due to high public interest but explicitly advise extreme skepticism.
Correction & Evolution: The nature of leaks is fluid. If new evidence emerges that contradicts a previous assessment, we are committed to updating the original report and adjusting the Rumor Assessment score to reflect the new reality. We value accuracy over "being first," and we own our misses as part of the forecasting process.
5. Responsible Reporting & the Editors' Code
In addition to the specific policies above, our journalism is governed by the Editors' Code of Practice, including (but not limited to) the following principles:
- Accuracy: We take care not to publish inaccurate or misleading information and correct significant errors promptly and with due prominence. We clearly distinguish between fact, analysis and opinion.
- Privacy & Intrusion into grief or shock: We respect individuals' private and family life and handle coverage involving grief, trauma or shock with particular sensitivity.
- Harassment: Our journalists must not harass or intimidate people, and must cease contact if asked to stop.
- Children & vulnerable people: We take special care when reporting on, or interacting with, children and vulnerable people, and avoid identifying children in sex cases or as victims/witnesses of sexual offences.
- Discrimination: We avoid prejudicial or pejorative references to a person's race, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability, unless genuinely relevant to the story.
- Crime & courts: We report crime and court proceedings in a way that avoids unjustified identification of family and friends of suspects and respects legal restrictions.
- Use of subterfuge: Any use of hidden recording or subterfuge requires a clear and demonstrable public‑interest justification and senior editorial approval.
In rare cases where we rely on public‑interest exceptions under the Editors' Code, the decision and reasoning must be recorded by a senior editor at the time of publication.
6. Reviews & Product Samples
Our reviews and assessments are based solely on our editorial judgment.
- Review Samples: We may receive products, download keys, or other samples from manufacturers for review. We do not accept any samples with preconditions for coverage. Receipt of a sample will be openly declared in the first paragraph of the review.
- Embargoes: We may agree to embargoes with companies, meaning we will not publish a review before an agreed-upon time. This does not influence the content of our review.
- Purchased Products: We frequently purchase products ourselves for review to ensure complete editorial independence.
- Evolving Reviews: Our assessment of games and hardware may be updated over the product's life. These changes will always be explained transparently and are made at the discretion of our editorial team.
You can read about our Hardware Section's standardized review methods here: How Wccftech reviews PC hardware components?
You can read about our Gaming Section's standardized review methods here: How Wccftech reviews video games?
7. Advertising, Affiliates & Sponsored Content
Advertising is necessary to support our site but is kept strictly separate from our editorial content.
- Revenue Sources: Advertisements and affiliate marketing links are primary revenue sources. We may earn a commission on sales through affiliate links.
- No Pay-for-Play: We do not accept money or other consideration from any company as a condition or incentive to write a review or story, whether favorable or unfavorable.
- Clear Labeling: All advertising and "infomercial" content will be clearly marked as such. Any sponsored content (not created by our editorial team) must be clearly marked and include a disclaimer.
- Editorial Independence: All reviews and editorial coverage are based on our editorial discretion alone, not on the desires of advertisers, affiliates, or PR firms.
8. Corrections, Updates & Content Removal
We are committed to accuracy and transparency in our corrections.
- Corrections: If a mistake is discovered, we will promptly issue a correction or retraction. We correct but do not remove inaccurate stories.
- Transparency: All corrections and/or retractions will be added to the top of the article with a timestamp explaining the change. A correction log will be maintained at the top of the article.
- Updates: New information that adds to but does not contradict an existing article may be added without notice.
- Content Removal: We may remove content only if we believe it has infringed on intellectual property rights or if we receive a valid DMCA request.
9. A Trusted Source for Professionals - Content Syndication
The quality and reliability of our reporting have earned us a place in the world's most respected professional information databases. Wccftech is a licensed content provider for premier global news and intelligence platforms, a validation of our status as an authoritative source.
Our content is syndicated through:
- Dow Jones Factiva A premier global business intelligence platform from Dow Jones, providing curated news and data to the world's leading corporations, financial institutions, and organizations.
- The Newstex Network A leading content syndicator that distributes high-quality news and commentary to professional and academic databases worldwide, including:
- LexisNexis: A primary resource for legal, business, and government professionals.
- Thomson Reuters Westlaw: A definitive source for legal and regulatory intelligence.
What This Means for Our Readers: Our inclusion in these curated services is an independent, third-party endorsement of our journalistic standards. It signifies that our factual reporting is considered valuable and reliable enough for a professional audience that depends on accurate information.
10. Giveaways & Contests
- From time to time, we conduct contests and giveaways for our readers. Rules are posted for each contest. Giveaways are not and should not be considered endorsements of the involved companies or their products.
11. Feedback
We take complaints about our editorial content seriously and aim to resolve them quickly and fairly.
How to complain to us
If you believe we have breached the Editors' Code of Practice or this Ethics Policy, please email [email protected] with:
- the URL(s) of the article(s)
- the date of publication
- a clear explanation of your concern and which part of the Editors' Code you believe is engaged, if known
We will:
- acknowledge your complaint within 9 working days, and
- aim to send a full response within 20 working days.
If you are not satisfied
If you are unhappy with our final response, you can take your complaint to IPSO. Details on how to complain are available at ipso.co.uk or by contacting IPSO at 10 Eastcheap, London EC3M 1AJ, UK, or via [email protected].
Last Updated:
December 12, 2025
