Editorial standards

SourceFeed exists to give working developers fast, accurate, genuinely useful coverage of the things that move their work forward — AI and machine learning, frameworks and runtimes, developer tools, cloud and infrastructure, and security. These are the standards we hold ourselves to in getting there. They apply to every article on the site.

How we choose what to cover

Our newsroom monitors hundreds of sources around the clock — vendor blogs and release notes, research papers, official documentation, primary reporting, and the communities where developers actually talk. We prioritise what is technically significant to people building software, not what is merely loudest or most clickable. A story earns coverage on its substance: is it a real shift, does it change how developers work, is it worth your time.

Accuracy and verification

Speed never outranks accuracy. Every article is grounded in identifiable sources, and we work to corroborate the key facts — claims, numbers, version details and quotes — across more than one independent source rather than trusting a single report. Where coverage is thin or a claim cannot be corroborated, we say so plainly, caveat it, or hold the story rather than publish something we can't stand behind. Each piece is checked against its sources before it goes live, and anything that doesn't clear our confidence bar is held back rather than shipped.

We do not invent facts, quotes, benchmarks or version numbers. Analysis, context and comparison drawn from our team's own expertise are clearly framed as such and kept separate from the reported facts.

Sourcing and attribution

We cite our sources. Articles carry a list of the sources behind them, and where we reference a specific tool, project or vendor we link its official site, documentation or release notes so you can go straight to the primary material. We attribute specific claims to the publisher that reported them, and we don't build an article around a single link or pass off one source's work as our own. Our reporting is original writing and analysis, not a re-hosting of other people's articles.

How we work

SourceFeed is an editorial operation. Our editors track developments across a wide range of sources, ground every piece in those sources, and verify claims against them before publishing. Sourcing, corroboration and verification — the standards on this page — are how every article is produced. The editorial judgment about what to cover, what angle matters to working developers, and whether a piece is accurate enough to publish is the heart of what we do.

Independence and advertising

Our coverage is independent of our commercial relationships. Advertising and any sponsored or affiliate placement is labelled as such and kept separate from editorial. Advertisers and partners do not get to influence, preview or approve our reporting, and a commercial relationship neither buys coverage nor shields anyone from it. Some links to products or services may be affiliate links; where that's the case it does not change what we choose to cover or what we say about it.

Corrections

We aim to get it right, and when we don't, we fix it. If you spot an error — a wrong fact, a broken or mis-attributed source, an out-of-date detail — please tell us via our contact page and we'll review it promptly. We update articles to correct genuine errors and to keep fast-moving stories current; substantive corrections are made transparently rather than quietly buried. The fastest way to reach us about an accuracy issue is the contact form, marked for the editorial team.

The team

The editors and writers behind our coverage, and the beats they own, are listed on our masthead. You can read more about who we are and why we built SourceFeed on the about page.