Editorial standards

Editorial Policy

How SpiderFoot plans, writes, reviews, updates, and corrects educational content about OSINT, privacy, and browser-based research.

Last updated: August 31, 2026

SpiderFoot articles are educational resources. They are not legal, security, employment, financial, or investigative advice, and they should not be used as the sole basis for a decision about a person or organization.

Our editorial purpose

We publish practical, evidence-first guidance that helps readers understand public-information research, use tools responsibly, recognize uncertainty, and reduce false positives. Topics are selected for their usefulness to defensive research, digital-footprint awareness, and careful verification.

How articles are developed

  1. 01Define the question. We identify the practical question, intended audience, and safety considerations before drafting.
  2. 02Research relevant sources. We favor primary documentation, first-party platform guidance, original research, and directly relevant references where available.
  3. 03Separate fact from interpretation. We label practical advice and inference clearly, and avoid presenting a single signal as proof.
  4. 04Review before publishing. We check clarity, factual support, links, attribution, potentially harmful framing, and whether the content explains limitations.

Standards for claims and sources

  • Claims should be proportionate to the available evidence and include important caveats.
  • We avoid publishing private personal data, instructions that facilitate harm, and unsupported allegations.
  • External links are included for context, not as an endorsement of every statement or service on the linked page.
  • AI may assist with internal drafting or organization, but it does not replace source review or editorial judgment.

Corrections and updates

Accuracy matters more than preserving an outdated statement. If we identify or receive credible evidence of a material error, we review the issue and, when appropriate, correct, clarify, remove, or annotate the content. Material changes may include an update note where doing so helps readers understand the revision.

To report a problem, email [email protected] with the page URL, the statement or result at issue, a concise explanation, and supporting public evidence. We do not guarantee a particular outcome, but we evaluate good-faith, substantiated reports.

Read how tools are evaluated

Our methodology explains testing, source limitations, and result verification.

View methodology