question mark ubuntu

Below is a (rather terse) summary of where we stand ethically with regards to coverage of …Well, everything and anything we cover on this site (and/or in media channels related to it).

We have not (and will not) accept payment (in any form, from physical goods to money or favours) in return for posting an article or a link on our website.

That’s not cool.

We do not accept sponsored or paid-for spots on social media, be it @mentions, likes or shares. (to that end: likes and/or retweets of other people’s content is not necessarily an endorsement, either).

Also not cool.

We have not (and will not) accept free trips, travel or paid for accommodation from companies that we write about if access to news is contingent on said offers. This could be seen as compromising our integrity and that’s, quite frankly, not cool. If access to news relies on affording a company or project preferential editorial treatment we just nope the situation and move on.

We have not (and will not) publish a press releases in whole as a news article. We always write around, quote from and editorialise press releases because we’re not a blog, not a billboard.

We will not agree to cover a news item/topic/interview that is subject to a specific set of “guidelines” or third-party editorial rules about how we can present the content. Our site, our voice.

Some of the news content published on this site may be subject to a timed embargo, on the elapse of which we (and other publishers) agree to publish content. This is standard industry practice and generally means you get timely, accurate news (and we get time to prepare it).

Some news content published on this site may also be subject to a non-disclosure agreement. This is super rare and usually only concerns commercially sensitive commercial news like takeovers and that sort of thing.

Where we receive review samples (e.g, hardware, Steam code, pre-release access) it is disclosed in the article relating to it in some shape or form. We never accept a review sample on condition of writing a “good review”, not mentioning specific flaws, or anything else. Around 99.9% of all review units are returned (again, as is industry practice).

If there is a conflict of interest, be it professional or personal, between article topic and author it is disclosed in the article itself.

We do not personally back crowd-funding projects that we write about. This is perhaps a bit of an extreme caution but it helps to keep boundaries distinct and avoid bias in any follow-up coverage.

If there’s anything you feel we’ve missed or need to clarify, give us a poke on twitter @omgubuntu or by getting in touch using our contact address.