Writing sourcing rules you can keep

Why do small teams need written sourcing rules?

Small editorial teams often rely on memory and habit. But when everyone is busy, shortcuts creep in. A written sourcing rule is a shared reference that prevents unsupported claims from reaching publication. It also protects the team from the slow erosion of trust that happens when readers spot an error. The BBC's editorial guidelines state that output must be "well sourced, based on sound evidence, and where possible corroborated" (BBC, 3.2.2). For a small team, a one-page rule that everyone agrees on is easier to keep than a long policy manual. It should be simple enough to memorize and specific enough to guide daily decisions.

What counts as a source you can cite?

A citable source is one you can name or describe in the article, and that a reader could in principle check. This includes public documents, named experts, official statements, and on-the-record interviews. Anonymous sources can be used, but they require special care. The BBC guidelines say that claims "that cannot be corroborated should normally be attributed" (BBC, 3.2.2). For a small team, the rule of thumb is: if you cannot attribute it, do not publish it unless you have a clear and agreed reason. If you must use an unnamed source for a serious allegation, treat it as an exception that needs a second pair of eyes. The BBC requires such cases to be referred to senior editorial staff (BBC, 3.3.1). Your team can adopt a similar check: one other editor must approve any single-source claim before it goes live.

How many sources are enough for a factual claim?

There is no universal number. The answer depends on the claim's importance and how contested it is. A routine fact may need only one reliable source. A controversial or surprising claim may need two independent sources. The BBC's principle is that accuracy must be "adequate and appropriate to the output" (BBC, 3.1). For a small team, a simple decision checklist helps:

Type of claim	Minimum sourcing	Extra check
Common knowledge (e.g., a well known date)	One authoritative reference	None
Routine factual statement	One named source	Confirm source is current
Contested or surprising claim	Two independent sources	Ask another editor to review
Serious allegation against a person or group	At least two independent sources, or one highly credible source plus documentation	Mandatory review by a second editor
Unnamed source making a serious allegation	Normally avoid; if unavoidable, one additional independent source and senior approval	Document why anonymity was granted

This table is not a legal or professional standard, but a practical tool. It helps a small team make consistent decisions without lengthy debate.

When should you attribute versus describe?

Attribution means telling the reader where information comes from. Description means explaining the nature of the source without naming it, such as "a person familiar with the negotiations." The BBC guidelines say that content producers should "be honest and open about what they don't know and avoid unfounded speculation" (BBC, 3.2.2). For a small team, the safest approach is to attribute whenever possible. If you cannot attribute, describe the source as precisely as you can without exposing them to harm. Avoid vague phrases like "sources say" that give no clue about reliability. Instead, say "two people who attended the meeting" or "a document reviewed by this publication." This builds reader trust and keeps your team accountable.

How do you handle corrections and updates?

Even with good sourcing, errors happen. The BBC says that "serious factual errors should normally be acknowledged and corrected quickly, clearly and appropriately" (BBC, 3.2.4). A small team should have a visible corrections practice. This means a dedicated page or section where corrections are listed, with the date and nature of the error. It also means a simple internal rule: anyone who spots an error can flag it, and the editor responsible must respond within a set time. For more on building this habit, see our guide on running a visible corrections practice. The key is to treat corrections as a sign of strength, not weakness. Readers appreciate honesty.

What about speed versus accuracy?

Small teams often feel pressure to publish quickly. But the BBC guidelines state that "in news and current affairs content, achieving due accuracy is more important than speed" (BBC, 3.2.5). This does not mean you can never be fast. It means that when the two conflict, accuracy wins. A useful internal rule is to ask: if this claim turns out to be wrong, how bad would that be? If the answer is "very bad," slow down and check again. If the answer is "minor," you can publish and correct later if needed. This judgment call is easier when your team has agreed on the categories in the table above.

How do you keep the rules alive?

A written rule is useless if no one reads it. Keep it short and visible. Post it where the team works. Review it once a quarter. When a new person joins, walk them through it. When a mistake happens, use it as a teaching moment, not a blame session. The Online News Association's ethics project offers a flexible framework that newsrooms can adapt to their own needs (ONA Ethics). For a small team, the goal is not a perfect code but a shared commitment to the same standard. That commitment is what keeps unsupported claims out of your publication. For related guidance on setting scope, see setting a narrow scope for a small magazine and avoiding implied continuity with an old name.

In the end, sourcing rules are not about bureaucracy. They are about respect for your readers and for the truth. A simple, well kept rule is one of the most powerful tools a small editorial team can have.