Skip to main content

Editorial Methodology

How we source and verify information.

WikiCounsellor exists to be a careful, primary-source-based reference in a category dominated by aggregators that republish out-of-date figures without citation. The protocol below explains, in concrete terms, how every published claim on this site is sourced, reviewed, and corrected.

  1. Stage 1 — Primary-source acquisition

    Every figure or rule on WikiCounsellor originates from one of three primary sources: (a) the awarding body's own 2026 documentation (for example, the DAAD scholarship database or the Chevening application guide), (b) the destination country's published statute (for example, the German Aufenthaltsgesetz or the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations Title 8), or (c) an administrative bulletin from the relevant ministry, embassy, or consular post. Aggregator websites, third-party blogs, and unattributed forum posts are not used as sources.

  2. Stage 2 — Cross-checking

    Where a stipend value, deadline, or eligibility rule appears in more than one official document — for example, both an awarding body's program page and a ministry bulletin — we cross-check the two before publishing. Where the sources disagree, we cite the primary source closest to the rule's origin (the statute itself in the case of visa rules, the awarding body in the case of program-specific rules) and note the discrepancy openly in the article.

  3. Stage 3 — Editorial review

    Every page is reviewed by a second editor against the primary source before publication. The reviewer's job is to confirm that each factual claim — every figure, every date, every statutory reference — can be traced to the cited source. Pages are signed off as 'WikiCounsellor Editorial Team' rather than under individual bylines because most pieces are produced collaboratively.

  4. Stage 4 — Pre-cycle review

    Scholarships, deadlines, and visa thresholds are reviewed against the awarding body's published documentation before each application cycle. Pages carry a 'reviewed' timestamp that reflects the date of the most recent verification. We do not claim a continuous automated audit cadence; the review is a deliberate, human, pre-cycle activity.

  5. Stage 5 — Public corrections

    Where an error is identified — internally during review, by a reader correction request, or because an awarding body has updated its rules — the correction is applied promptly, and a brief note describing the change is added to the affected page. We do not silently overwrite published claims. Where a reader's submission triggers the correction, the contribution is acknowledged on request.

  6. Stage 6 — Versioning

    WikiCounsellor keeps an internal record of how each program's published data has changed over time. Where a reader prepared an application against a specific cycle's published data and later needs to reference what was visible at the time of submission, we can provide that snapshot on request through the contact form.

What WikiCounsellor does not do

  • We do not republish or paraphrase third-party scholarship aggregators. Program records are constructed independently from primary sources.

  • We do not accept paid placement, sponsored articles, or affiliate-driven editorial. Where any commercial relationship exists, it is disclosed in /disclosure.

  • We do not provide visa-application or immigration-petition services. Articles in /insights are educational and general; jurisdiction-specific legal advice must be obtained from a licensed practitioner in the destination country.

  • We do not draft personal statements, motivation letters, or scholarship essays on behalf of candidates. Frameworks and rubrics are published; ghost-writing is not offered.

  • We do not estimate, infer, or interpolate values. Where a primary source is silent on a particular question, the page says so explicitly rather than fabricating an answer.

  • We do not publish synthetic biographies for non-existent staff. Bylines are added only as real, verifiable contributors join the team.

Submit a correction

If you identify an error, an outdated figure, or a statutory reference that has been amended, write to the editorial desk via our contact form with the subject “Correction request” and include the URL of the page in question along with the primary source you believe contradicts it. We aim to reply within seven business days.

Contact the editorial desk