How we earn reader trust
These standards apply to Gorilla Facts learning guides, research reports, and news coverage. They are designed to make our work accurate, transparent, useful, and easy to correct.
Accuracy before publication
Editors verify names, species and subspecies, dates, locations, numerical claims, quotations, conservation categories, and the scope of research findings. A source must support the specific claim attached to it; a relevant-looking link is not enough.
Our source hierarchy
We prefer sources closest to the evidence:
- Peer-reviewed research papers, datasets, and formal scientific assessments.
- The IUCN Red List, treaties and intergovernmental bodies, government wildlife agencies, and official research-institution releases.
- Established conservation organizations and accredited zoos with directly relevant programs or expertise.
- High-quality secondary reporting that clearly identifies its underlying evidence.
We avoid using anonymous aggregators, unattributed social posts, promotional copy, or AI-generated text as factual authority. Wikipedia and search snippets may help locate sources but are not treated as final evidence for consequential claims.
Reporting scientific research
A research report should identify the study, authors or institution, publication venue, study population or dataset, central finding, and meaningful limitations. Observational association is not presented as causation. A single study is not described as scientific consensus, and preprints are clearly labeled as not yet peer reviewed.
Reporting news
News articles distinguish when an event occurred from when the article was published. Headlines should reflect the evidence available at publication and avoid exaggerating preliminary results, isolated animal behavior, population estimates, or conservation announcements. Developing stories are updated as reliable information becomes available.
Conservation status and population numbers
Conservation categories, taxonomic treatment, survey dates, geographic scope, confidence ranges, and the difference between wild and captive populations should be stated where relevant. Old estimates are not presented as current merely because they remain widely repeated online.
Language, welfare, and imagery
We use respectful, non-sensational language. We do not encourage touching, feeding, approaching, purchasing, or keeping wild primates. Captions and alt text should describe what an image shows without inventing an animal’s intent or emotional state. Graphic material requires a clear editorial purpose and appropriate warning.
Authorship, expertise, and review
Bylines identify the responsible author or editorial account. Profiles describe relevant experience truthfully and do not imply academic, veterinary, field-research, or conservation credentials that have not been verified. When specialist review materially affects an article, the reviewer and scope of review should be disclosed when permission is granted.
AI-assisted work
AI tools may assist with research organization, transcription, outlining, or copyediting. They are never treated as sources. A human editor remains responsible for checking every factual claim against reliable evidence, reviewing links and quotations, avoiding fabricated citations, and approving publication. AI-generated or materially altered images must be labeled when their synthetic nature could affect interpretation.
Independence, advertising, and conflicts
Advertising and affiliate relationships, if used, are kept separate from editorial judgment. Payment does not buy favorable scientific or conservation coverage. Material sponsorships, free travel, products, organizational relationships, or other conflicts relevant to an article should be disclosed near the content.
Updates and corrections
Routine clarity, spelling, and formatting changes may be made without a correction note. Material factual changes receive an updated date and an explanatory note when the original error could have changed a reader’s understanding. See the full Corrections Policy.
Reader participation
Readers can report an error through our Contact page. Include the URL, disputed wording, and supporting evidence. Substantive challenges are evaluated against the strongest available sources, not popularity or pressure from an interested party.