Editorial Policy

Our mission

PupWiki helps US dog owners make better decisions. Every page must serve a real owner task — it must help someone decide, plan, compare, or act — not simply repeat information available everywhere else.

Content standards

What we do

• Cite authoritative sources for all health, nutrition, and care claims.
• Display source authority tiers and limitations clearly.
• Show the date content was last reviewed.
• Use structured decision formats: best-for, not-ideal-if, cost ranges, confidence levels.
• State assumptions behind every estimate or score.
• Apply medical disclaimers wherever health information appears.

What we do not publish

• Veterinary diagnosis, treatment advice, or prescribing information.
• "Best" or "top" product claims without transparent methodology.
• Thin content that adds no decision value.
• Health or safety content without editorial review against Tier 1 sources.
• Fake reviewer names, fake credentials, or invented experts.
• Guaranteed claims about individual dog behavior, cost, or health outcomes.
• Affiliate or partner content framed as impartial editorial verdicts.
• Emergency veterinary guidance (see our Terms of Use for the emergency statement).

Author and reviewer model

PupWiki content is attributed honestly. Our attribution labels mean exactly what they say:

• Written by PupWiki Editorial — Content produced or reviewed by the PupWiki editorial process, sourced from the authoritative references listed on each page. This label does not imply a named veterinary reviewer unless one is explicitly credited.
• Source references — All health, nutrition, training, and care claims link back to the source registry. Claims without a Tier 1 or Tier 2 source are labeled with a lower confidence level.

We do not fabricate reviewer credentials. If a piece has been reviewed by an outside domain expert, that reviewer is named and their relevant qualification is stated. If no such review has occurred, we do not imply it.

AI-assisted content workflow

PupWiki uses AI language models as a drafting and formatting tool. We disclose this because transparency about how content is produced is part of editorial integrity.

AI assistance in our workflow:

• Drafts initial content structure from authoritative source material and structured data files.
• Formats, restructures, and edits existing factual content.
• Generates template variations from validated breed, cost, and tool data.

AI assistance does not:

• Produce health, safety, or nutrition claims that are not verified against Tier 1 sources.
• Generate breed scores, tool outputs, or cost figures — those are produced by deterministic rule-based code.
• Bypass editorial review on health and safety content.

All tool outputs are produced by rule-based engines with no AI inference involved in scoring decisions, safety gates, or verdicts. See the Methodology page for tool-specific details.

Source governance

Sources are classified into authority tiers. Each source is used only within its area of authority:

• Tier 1 — Government agencies (CDC), veterinary bodies (WSAVA, AVSAB, AAHA), peer-reviewed veterinary references (Merck Veterinary Manual). Support health, nutrition, and safety claims.
• Tier 2 — Breed registries (AKC, UKC), major breed clubs, established veterinary practice groups. Support breed descriptions and ownership guidance.
• Tier 3 — Industry publications, owner surveys, market data. Support cost ranges and statistics only.

A Tier 2 breed registry source can describe breed temperament tendencies. It cannot be used to support a health claim. A Tier 3 market source can inform a cost range. It cannot support a safety statement. Commercial or affiliate sources are not used to support editorial verdicts.

See the Sources page for the full source index and authority tier explainer.

Affiliate and commercial independence

Affiliate relationships, partner offers, and display advertising do not influence:

• Breed scores or fit verdicts.
• Tool outputs (cost estimates, training plan safety gates, food fit results).
• Source selection or source tier classification.
• Editorial verdicts, "best for" assessments, or content recommendations.

Affiliate links are labeled as "Affiliate link", "Partner offer", "Sponsored", or "Advertisement" wherever they appear. Commercial content is never embedded inside editorial content without labeling. See our Disclosure page for full commercial relationship details.

Corrections and correction priority

We review and prioritize corrections based on the type and severity of the issue:

1. Priority 1 — Safety-related: A claim that could lead to harm (dangerous food items, medication dosing, emergency care misrepresentation). Reviewed and resolved within 2 business days.
2. Priority 2 — Factual errors: A specific claim that is demonstrably incorrect based on authoritative sources. Reviewed within 7 business days.
3. Priority 3 — Outdated source: A source URL is broken or a reference has been superseded by newer authoritative guidance. Reviewed within 14 business days.
4. Priority 4 — Tool or calculator issues: A formula, scoring rule, or output that produces incorrect results. Reviewed within 7 business days.
5. Priority 5 — Wording or clarity: Ambiguous phrasing, missing context, or readability issues. Reviewed at next content cycle.

Corrections can be submitted via the contact form. We annotate updated content with the correction date where appropriate.

Review cadence by content type

• Breed profiles — Reviewed at minimum annually, or when authoritative breed standards update.
• Health and nutrition guides — Reviewed when Tier 1 sources publish updated guidance.
• Cost estimates — Cost model inputs reviewed annually using US national average pricing data.
• Tool methodology — Tool engines reviewed when underlying authoritative guidelines update (e.g., WSAVA nutrition, AVSAB training position statements).
• Source registry — All source URLs verified at least annually.

Policy last updated: 2026-06-06