Editorial policy
These standards govern factual and educational content published on wisely.fit, including accuracy claims, comparisons, health explanations, FAQs, and calculator guidance.
Scope and responsibility
Wisely is published by EthicsLab Limited. The company is responsible for content on wisely.fit unless a page clearly identifies another publisher. This policy applies to editorial material; the Privacy Policy and Terms of Service separately govern data handling and use of the service.
Wisely has a commercial interest in its own product. Product pages and comparison pages are not independent journalism. We manage that conflict by distinguishing measured results from opinion, linking material claims to evidence, naming limitations, and including relevant disadvantages rather than presenting every comparison as a universal win.
Sourcing standards
Sources should be selected in this order where applicable:
- official government, regulator, public-health, or food-composition sources;
- peer-reviewed research and recognised scientific institutions;
- first-party product documentation, pricing pages, privacy notices, and platform listings for claims about another product;
- established secondary reporting when no suitable primary source is available.
Sources must actually support the adjacent claim. Publication date, jurisdiction, population, sample, and uncertainty should be considered before applying a source broadly. Affiliate pages, copied summaries, anonymous posts, and search-result snippets are not preferred evidence for a material health or performance claim.
Our accuracy benchmark follows a more specific reference hierarchy, test procedure, and scoring formula described in the benchmark methodology.
Review before publication
Before material editorial content is published or substantially updated:
- factual claims should be checked against the cited source;
- calculations and units should be independently recomputed;
- product comparisons should be checked against current first-party information and dated where change is likely;
- claims should be narrowed when the evidence does not support a broad conclusion;
- health language should be checked for unsupported diagnostic, preventive, or treatment implications; and
- links, metadata, structured data, and visible page content should describe the same thing.
A page should not imply medical or scientific review by a named professional unless that review occurred and the person's role and credentials can be verified. Wisely currently does not list named medical reviewers on these pages.
AI assistance disclosure
AI-assisted tools may be used to help outline, draft, condense, or check website content. AI output is not treated as a source and does not replace review. Any factual claim produced with assistance must be checked against repository evidence or an appropriate external source before publication.
We do not ask readers to trust a claim because an AI system generated it. Material statistics, quotations, credentials, partnerships, reviews, and product capabilities must not be invented or inferred from incomplete evidence. If AI materially generates an analysis or result rather than assisting with wording, that use should be disclosed on the relevant page.
Health and nutrition limitations
Wisely publishes general educational information and estimates. It does not provide medical diagnosis or treatment, and its calorie, macro, energy-expenditure, and weight-change outputs are not laboratory measurements. Individual needs and outcomes vary.
Readers should seek advice from a qualified healthcare professional for a medical condition, pregnancy, an eating disorder or history of disordered eating, medication-related nutrition questions, paediatric nutrition, or another situation requiring individual clinical care. Website content should not instruct a reader to disregard professional care.
Calculators should identify their formula, assumptions, and practical limits. An estimate should be labelled as an estimate, not described as an exact personal requirement or guaranteed outcome.
Comparison standards
Comparisons should separate facts about Wisely from facts about another product and link the latter to current first-party sources where practical. They should identify the evaluation date when pricing, availability, features, or policies may change.
A fair comparison names meaningful situations in which the other product may be a better fit. The absence of a published result must not be presented as proof of poor performance. Company-run tests must be labelled as such, use the same scoring procedure for compared tools, and expose enough detail to inspect the result. See the comparison hub.
Corrections
Report a suspected factual error to support@wisely.fit. Include the page, disputed statement, and a supporting source where possible. We assess the underlying evidence rather than changing a page solely because a claim is favourable or unfavourable to Wisely.
- Minor spelling, grammar, formatting, and broken-link fixes may be made without a correction note.
- A substantive factual correction should update the page's review date and clearly correct the affected statement.
- If a correction changes a benchmark aggregate or central comparison conclusion, all affected figures and summaries should be updated.
- A correction must not silently preserve a headline or structured-data claim that the corrected body no longer supports.
Updates and freshness
Pages with changing product, pricing, policy, benchmark, or launch information should be reviewed when a material change becomes known. Methodology pages should be reviewed when the model, test set, source hierarchy, comparison procedure, or scoring formula changes.
A visible “last reviewed” or “last updated” date means the page was assessed on that date; it does not mean every linked source was newly published. Dates should only be changed after a meaningful review, not merely to make content appear fresh.