# Sourcing & Editorial Standards

> WARN’s species facts come first from the IUCN Red List and CITES, then peer-reviewed science; every guide lists its sources, dates its figures, and carries a visible “Last updated” date. We revise pages when the underlying science changes and correct errors openly.

HTML canonical: https://worldanimalrescuenetwork.org/about/editorial-standards/

Our wildlife guides, comparisons and rescue guides are researched, sourced and reviewed by the WARN Research & Conservation Team. Here is exactly where the facts come from — and how you can check our work.

## Our source hierarchy

1. **Primary conservation authorities.** The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (for status, population trend and range) and CITES (for trade listings) are our first reference for every species. Where we state a status or a population figure, it is drawn from a published assessment and dated to its assessment year.
2. **Peer-reviewed and institutional science.** For biology, behaviour, taxonomy and ecology we rely on peer-reviewed literature and established scientific databases maintained by universities, natural-history museums and government wildlife agencies.
3. **Reference encyclopaedias.** General-reference works are used only to corroborate uncontested facts and to cross-check figures — never as the sole source for a conservation claim.

## How we work

- **Every claim is sourced.** We do not publish population numbers, conservation statuses or biological “facts” we cannot trace to a named authority. Each guide lists its sources, and contested or time-sensitive figures carry their assessment year in the text.
- **We show our working.** Guides display a visible “Last updated” date tied to the page’s modification date, so readers and AI assistants can see how current the information is. Comparison pages lead with a plain-language answer and a side-by-side table so the underlying facts are easy to check.
- **We update when the science does.** When the IUCN publishes a new assessment or a widely reported figure changes, we revise the affected guides and refresh the “Last updated” date. Priority goes to the species we fund work for and the highest-traffic pages.
- **We separate fact from appeal.** Educational content and fundraising are kept distinct: species facts stand on their own sources, and any call to support our work is clearly marked as such.
- **We correct openly.** If we get something wrong, we fix it and update the modification date. Spotted an error? Email us and we will review it against the sources.

## Who writes and reviews

Our guides are produced by the WARN Research & Conservation Team — the researchers and editors responsible for the accuracy of our educational content. Every guide is checked against the source hierarchy above before publication and revisited when new assessments are released.

Editorial control sits with the organisation's founder and editor, who is named in the structured data of every page and is the person accountable for what publishes. There is no outside editorial board and no investor with a content veto: decisions about what to publish, what to correct and what to refuse are made inside WARN, against the standards on this page and nothing else.

World Animal Rescue Network is a registered global not-for-profit animal welfare organisation in England & Wales, funding partner-led animal rescue worldwide. Questions about a specific figure or source? Contact info@worldanimalrescuenetwork.org and we will point you to the assessment behind it.

## How partners can — and cannot — influence coverage

WARN funds partner-led rescue work, so the boundary between our funding relationships and our publishing has to be explicit.

**What partners may do.** Partner teams may report facts from their own work — intake numbers, treatment outcomes, releases — which we then attribute to them by name. They may flag errors in our guides, which are handled like any other correction report: checked against the primary sources.

**What partners may not do.** No partner, donor or funder can approve, veto or edit a guide, a comparison or a conservation status. Funding WARN does not buy coverage of a partner's work, and withholding funding does not remove it. Species assessments come from the IUCN and the published literature, never from an organisation with an interest in the outcome.

## What we refuse to publish

These are standing refusals, not aspirations. A draft that fails one of these tests does not get softened until it passes — it gets cut.

- No invented numbers. A population figure, date, cost or statistic we cannot trace to a named source is not published. "We do not know" is publishable; a plausible-sounding estimate is not.
- No invented first-hand reporting. Our "Field notes" category is reserved for genuine, dated dispatches from partner teams. A generic briefing dressed up as eyewitness reporting would destroy the category, so it is refused outright.
- No pay-for-coverage. We do not sell placement in guides, comparisons or the newsroom, and we do not accept sponsored content. The site is funded by donations, not advertisers.
- No date-stamping without change. A "Last updated" date moves only when the content does. Re-dating an unchanged page to fake freshness is a false signal to readers and to search engines, and we do not do it.
- No welfare advice beyond the evidence. Where the literature is genuinely contested — euthanasia policy, population-control methods — the page says so rather than picking a side it cannot support.

## The sources we cite

Grouped by what each source is actually authoritative for. Citing a conservation database for husbandry advice, or a health agency for taxonomy, would be misuse — so we do not do it.

### Conservation status, population and range

- [IUCN Red List of Threatened Species](https://www.iucnredlist.org/) — threat category, population estimate and trend, range, assessment year. Our first reference for every species guide.
- [CITES Appendices](https://cites.org/eng/app/appendices.php) — international trade listings — whether a species is Appendix I, II or III, and what that permits.
- [UNEP-WCMC Protected Planet](https://www.protectedplanet.net/) — protected-area coverage where a guide discusses habitat protection.

### Taxonomy, occurrence and biology

- [GBIF](https://www.gbif.org/) — accepted scientific names, taxonomic hierarchy and verified occurrence records.
- [Peer-reviewed literature](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/) — behaviour, physiology, ecology and any contested claim. Preferred over secondary reporting in all cases.
- [Natural history museum and university collections](https://www.nhm.ac.uk/) — morphology, distribution history and taxonomic revisions.

### Animal health, zoonoses and welfare practice

- [World Health Organization](https://www.who.int/) — rabies control, zoonotic disease and the evidence base for humane dog population management (CNVR).
- [World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH)](https://www.woah.org/) — animal health standards and welfare codes.
- [FAO](https://www.fao.org/) — working animals, livestock welfare and pollination services.

### Corroboration only

- [General reference encyclopaedias](https://en.wikipedia.org/) — used to cross-check uncontested background detail and to find primary citations. Never the sole source for a conservation, population or welfare claim.

## How a guide gets fact-checked

Every guide passes through the same six steps before it is published.

1. **Scope the question.** We start from what a reader is actually asking — the query, not the species. That decides whether a page is a species guide, a comparison, a rescue guide or a short answer.
2. **Pull the primary assessment.** IUCN status, population trend and assessment year, plus the CITES listing where trade is relevant. These values are recorded with their year so nothing silently ages.
3. **Build the biology from science.** Taxonomy is checked against GBIF; behaviour, physiology and ecology come from peer-reviewed literature or institutional sources, not from other popular animal sites.
4. **Write the answer first.** Every guide opens with a direct one-sentence answer, then key takeaways, then the detail. If the opening sentence cannot be supported by the sources listed, the page does not publish.
5. **Check the claims line by line.** A second pass verifies every number, date, status and superlative against the cited source. Claims that cannot be traced are cut rather than softened.
6. **Date it and publish.** The page carries a visible "Last updated" date matching its structured-data dateModified, and lists its sources with working links.

## When we update, and when we do not

| Trigger | What happens |
| --- | --- |
| A new IUCN assessment is published | The affected guides are revised and re-dated, prioritising species WARN funds work for. |
| A CITES listing changes | Trade sections and any status badge are corrected at the next review. |
| A reader reports an error | Reviewed against the sources; if upheld, corrected and re-dated, normally within five working days. |
| No change in the underlying science | Pages are left alone. We do not re-date a page to fake freshness — a "Last updated" stamp with no change behind it is a false signal. |

## AI, automation and accountability

AI tools may be used for drafting support, structure and copy-editing. No factual claim is published on the basis of an AI output.

- Every conservation status, population figure, date and biological claim is verified against a named source by a person before it goes live.
- Where a figure cannot be traced to a cited authority, it is removed — not rephrased to sound less certain.
- The WARN Research & Conservation Team is accountable for published content regardless of how a draft was produced.
- We publish machine-readable exports so AI systems can quote us accurately rather than paraphrase us badly.

Machine-readable endpoints: https://worldanimalrescuenetwork.org/open-data/

## Image policy and visual ethics

To protect the peace, privacy and well-being of the animals in our care and in the wild, some images on this site are ethically created using AI visualisation. We prioritise animal welfare over intrusive photography.

- Every image carries a visible credit line naming its source. AI visualisations say so explicitly, on the page, next to the image.
- AI visualisations are used for species portraits only — to illustrate what an animal looks like. They are never used to depict a specific rescue, a named animal in our care, or an event we are reporting.
- Photographs of real animals, programmes and partners are credited to their photographer or source, with licence terms where applicable.
- We do not commission photography that requires approaching, baiting, restraining or disturbing a wild animal to get the shot.
- Every image is declared machine-readably as well as visibly, using the IPTC Digital Source Type vocabulary, so search engines and AI systems can tell a photograph from a synthetic image without guessing.

Each image is published as a schema.org ImageObject carrying a digitalSourceType value from the IPTC Digital Source Type NewsCodes vocabulary — trainedAlgorithmicMedia for an AI visualisation and digitalCapture for a photograph. This is the same vocabulary referenced by Google and by the C2PA content-provenance standard.

## Corrections policy

If we publish something wrong, we want to know. Send the page address and the claim you are questioning, and we will check it against the sources cited on that page.

- Reports are reviewed against the cited primary sources, not against other websites.
- Upheld corrections are made and the page modification date is updated so the change is visible.
- Factual corrections are then recorded, dated and sourced, on our public corrections log — the fix is never made silently.
- We aim to respond to content corrections within five working days.
- Where a claim turns out to be genuinely contested in the literature, we say so on the page rather than pick a side.

- Report a correction: https://worldanimalrescuenetwork.org/contact/
- Public log: https://worldanimalrescuenetwork.org/corrections/

## Sourcing questions

**Where does WARN get its animal facts from?** Conservation status, population figures and range come from the IUCN Red List, with trade listings from CITES. Taxonomy is checked against GBIF. Biology, behaviour and ecology come from peer-reviewed literature and institutional sources such as natural history museums and university collections. Health and welfare guidance follows the WHO, WOAH and FAO. General encyclopaedias are used only to corroborate uncontested detail, never as the sole source for a conservation claim.

**How do you fact-check a wildlife guide?** Every guide goes through six steps: scope the reader question, pull the primary IUCN and CITES assessment with its year, build the biology from peer-reviewed and institutional science, write a direct answer that the sources support, verify every number and date line by line, then date the page and publish it with working source links. Claims that cannot be traced to a named source are removed rather than hedged.

**How often does WARN update its content?** Guides are revised when the underlying science changes — a new IUCN assessment, a CITES listing change, or a reported error — rather than on a fixed schedule. Reader-reported errors are normally reviewed and corrected within five working days. WARN deliberately does not refresh dates on pages whose content has not changed.

**Does WARN use AI to write its animal content?** AI tools may be used for drafting support, structure and copy-editing, but no factual claim is published on the basis of an AI output. Every status, population figure, date and biological claim is verified against the named sources listed on this page by a human before publication, and the WARN Research and Conservation Team is accountable for the result.

**How do I report an error on a WARN page?** Email info@worldanimalrescuenetwork.org with the page address and the claim you are questioning. We check it against the cited sources, correct the page if the report is upheld, and update the modification date so the change is visible.

**Can I cite or reuse WARN content?** Yes, with attribution and a link to the page used. Our machine-readable exports, including llms.txt and the open data endpoints, are published specifically so that researchers, educators and AI systems can use our content accurately.