How we work
Editorial Standards & Corrections
The Conservation Report exists to be checked. These are the rules it holds itself to, what counts as a source, how we date what we publish, what we do when the evidence is contested, and how we fix what we get wrong. They are deliberately plain, because a standard you need a lawyer to read is not one a reader can hold you to.
Sourcing
Every article carries its sources, and every factual claim in it traces to one of them. We require at least two independent sources per article, and we reach for the primary document wherever one exists, the peer-reviewed paper, the agency press release, the treaty text, the Red List assessment, rather than a secondary write-up of it. When we cite a news report, it is because it adds reporting the primary document does not contain, not because it was easier to find.
The sources are stored as structured data alongside each article and rendered from that store, so the list you read and the record we keep cannot quietly disagree. An article that loses its sources does not publish. This is enforced in code, not by good intentions.
The two dates
Each article shows two dates: when the event happened, and when we published. They are stored in separate fields, and we never backdate a publication to make the archive look older, more prescient, or more complete than it is. The publication date is set by the database at the moment an article goes live and cannot be edited by hand.
It is a small discipline that removes a common, invisible way of misleading a reader, quietly implying you said something before you did. AEDO1 began publishing the Report in July 2026, and nothing here pretends otherwise.
Where sources disagree
A great deal of environmental and archaeological reporting picks the number that tells the cleanest story. We try to do the opposite. Where datasets disagree, where a figure is a model rather than a measurement, or where a popular narrative has outrun the evidence, the article says so plainly and shows the range, even when a single confident number would read better.
This is the whole reason the Report exists. “Accurate rather than alarming” is not a slogan; it means we would rather tell you an honest “it depends, and here is on what” than a satisfying figure we cannot defend.
Corrections
We correct in public. If a claim here is wrong, we fix it visibly rather than deleting the sentence and pretending it was never written. Getting something wrong is not the failure; refusing to own it is.
Found an error, a broken link, a misread study, a number that does not add up? Tell us at info@netfreq.tv. We read every one, and we would genuinely rather hear it from you than leave it standing.
Independence
The Report is free to read, requires no account, and carries no advertising. The organizations we cover, link to, or list in our directory are not partners and do not pay to be there; we receive nothing from them, and nothing you could buy from AEDO1 benefits them. We say this explicitly because a reader is entitled to know whether the people describing conservation work have a financial stake in how it is described. Here, they do not.
When that ever changes, when there is something to buy and a share of it is directed to a cause, we will say so on the page where the claim is made, with the arrangement disclosed, not buried. Until then, the Report is exactly what it looks like: reporting, with its sources attached.