Ethics & Standards

These are the ethical rules our journalists agree to when they write for What's the Big Data. They exist so readers can trust that the story in front of them hasn't been shaped by money, access, or the writer's personal stake in the outcome.

Editorial independence

No advertiser, sponsor, tool vendor, investor, or business partner directs, previews, or approves editorial coverage. Sales and editorial are structurally separated. When a company we cover is also an advertiser, our reporters cover them the same way they would cover any other company, and the fact of the advertising relationship does not appear in the story.

Conflicts of interest

Journalists disclose to their editor any personal, financial, or family relationship that could reasonably be perceived to compromise their objectivity on a story. When a conflict exists, we either reassign the story to a different reporter or disclose the conflict in the article itself. Reporters covering the AI industry may not hold positions in single-name AI stocks or in the private funding rounds of AI startups they cover. Broad, diversified index funds are exempt.

Gifts, trips, and freebies

We do not accept paid trips, hotels, or hospitality from companies we cover. We do accept invitations to press events, conferences, and product demonstrations on the same terms offered to other reporters, provided the value of any meals or hosted attendance is nominal. Product samples and API trial credits used for review purposes are returned, cancelled, or (for consumables) declared and given away — never kept for personal use if the value exceeds a nominal threshold. When we review a product a company sent us for that purpose, the review says so.

Affiliate and referral revenue

Some links to third-party tools on this site are affiliate links, meaning we may earn a commission if a reader signs up after clicking. Affiliate relationships do not influence which tools we cover, how we rank them, or what we say about them — reviews and directory placements are decided editorially, and we cover both tools that have affiliate programs and tools that don't. Where affiliate links appear, they are disclosed in the article.

Sources and anonymity

We prefer on-the-record, named sources. We grant anonymity only when a source has a reasonable fear of retaliation and the information they're providing is materially in the public interest. When we use an anonymous source we describe them as precisely as we can without identifying them (“a current engineer on the safety team,” not “a source”) and explain in the article why anonymity was granted. We do not pay for information.

Verifying claims

Extraordinary claims — leaked benchmarks, unattributed screenshots, allegations of misconduct — get extraordinary verification. We contact the company or individual named in the story before publication and give them a reasonable window to respond, and we include their response (or the fact they declined) in the piece.

Plagiarism and attribution

Copying another outlet's reporting or another author's wording without attribution is a firing offence. When we build on another outlet's reporting, we say so and link out. We do not paraphrase to hide the source; if the reporting is theirs, the credit is theirs.

Corrections

When we get it wrong, we say so. See our Corrections Policy for the mechanics of how corrections, updates, and clarifications are labelled.

Treatment of AI tool coverage

Some categories of AI tools we cover (image generators, “undress” tools, deepfake voices) have obvious misuse potential. Our coverage of these categories is guided by our Responsible AI Use Policy, which draws a clear line between explaining what a tool does and endorsing every possible use of it.

Reader concerns

Ethics complaints go to [email protected] with “Ethics” in the subject line. We'll acknowledge every complaint and reply substantively once we have investigated.

Last updated: September 2026.