See how Zoiko Social rates the publishers behind animal
news.
We assess publishers against published standards for identity, sourcing, accountability, corrections, editorial practice, and reliability. Ratings are reviewed over time and are separate from article-level evidence and corrections.
Read Animal NewsStandards v2.3
version are all server-authoritative — never computed
or renamed on the client.
source.
Approved public ratings, explained
What we evaluate
Six transparent dimensions. No hidden numerical score — just documented standards and evidence.
Identity & accountability
Is the publisher identifiable and accountable?
Evidence: masthead, ownership disclosures, editorial contacts.
Sourcing & attribution
Does reporting show where claims come from?
Evidence: primary documents, named sources, datasets,
citations.
Corrections & accountability
Can material errors be corrected transparently?
Evidence: corrections policy, visible updates, complaint route.
Editorial standards
Are reporting, opinion, and sponsored content
distinguishable?
Evidence: published standards, bylines, sponsorship markers.
Reliability history
Does the source show a sustained, accountable pattern?
Evidence: recorded review findings, error-handling history.
Domain context
Is specialist animal/science/legal coverage handled
responsibly?
Evidence: qualified experts, limitation language, legal status
precision.
How the review lifecycle works
Initial review → approval → publication → monitoring → re-review → change or retirement. Every step is
server-owned and audited.
provenance created.
methodology version.
label & effective date.
authoritative and visible.
tracked — never popularity.
change or material signals.
change note.
Source profile proof
This is exactly what a reader can inspect for any actively rated source — nothing more, nothing hidden.
reliability history.
practice.
Three trust layers — never collapsed into one
A publisher's rating, a story's evidence, and a story's relevance to you are three separate signals. None
stands in for another.
Source rating
You seeversion.
Story evidence
You seeRelevance
You seeChanges, corrections & challenges
Four separate routes — each with its own queue, permissions, and audit trail.
Report an Inaccuracy
Entry: on a specific story. Steps: select issue → identify claim → add evidence → submit.
Outcome: editorial correction workflow — does not, by itself, change the source rating.
Report profile information
Entry: on a source profile. Steps: choose the factual field → propose a correction → add evidence.
Outcome: profile-fact review — does not automatically challenge the tier.
Request publisher review
Entry: standards or source profile. Steps: identity/authority validation → evidence packet → queue.
Outcome: review state or decision per governance policy.
Challenge a rating
Entry: source profile / decision notice. Steps: identify disputed finding → evidence → conflict check
→ independent review.
Outcome: uphold, change, request more evidence, or close — always audited.
These workflows are never collapsed into one. A story-level correction does not silently become a rating challenge, and a rating challenge is never decided solely by the reviewer being challenged.
Editorial independence
Commercial relationships have zero write authority over source ratings, eligibility, corrections,
methodology, or ranking.
Prohibited rating inputs
None of the following may ever influence a source rating:
*Unless separately authorized under governance rules.
Methodology version history
Every active and historic rating is bound to the methodology version used to assess it.
Frequently asked questions
How does Zoiko Social rate news sources?
Each publisher is reviewed against our published source standards — including accuracy record, transparency about ownership and funding, how clearly it separates news from opinion, and how it handles corrections. The result is a rating label shown on every story from that source.
Does a high source rating mean every article is true?
No. A rating describes the publisher's overall standards and track record, not every claim in every story. Even well-rated sources can make mistakes, so read critically and report anything that looks wrong.
What do Tier 1 and Tier 2 Source Verified mean?
Tier 1 sources meet our highest standards for accuracy, transparency, and corrections. Tier 2 sources meet our core standards but have a shorter track record or less complete transparency. Both are verified; Tier 1 simply meets more of the criteria.
Can a publisher pay for a better rating?
No. Ratings cannot be bought, and advertising or partnership arrangements have no effect on a publisher's rating. Sponsored content is always labelled separately.
How can a publisher request a review?
Publishers can request a review by contacting our editorial team with evidence of changes to their standards, such as a new corrections policy or ownership disclosure. Reviews are assessed against the same published criteria as every other source.
What happens if a rating changes?
The new rating applies to that publisher's stories from the date of the change, and the change is recorded with a reason. Stories already published keep a note of the rating they had at the time.
Trust is something you can inspect, not
just take our word for.
Read verified-source animal news, or flag something that doesn't look
right — neither is ever gated behind sign-in or premium.