We here at SuperNerdLand under­stand how impor­tant it is for us to have the trust of our audi­ence, as well oper­ate at the high­est stan­dards that we are capa­ble of. We make a promise to you, our read­ers and view­ers, to always strive for excel­lence and to provide con­tent you know you can trust.

You need not go to jour­nal­ism school, or take com­plex cours­es, to under­stand and val­ue eth­i­cal prac­tices. Good stan­dards are some­thing you can always work on regard­less of back­ground.

In our promise to you, we have adopt­ed this Code of Ethics. It has been adapt­ed for our use from the Association for Food Journalist Code of Ethics. We feel that if an asso­ci­a­tion ded­i­cat­ed to cov­er­ing some­thing as sub­jec­tive as taste in food can have a set of stan­dards in place to pro­tect the con­sumer and audi­ence, then so can we.

If you feel we are not hold­ing our­selves to the­se stan­dards, please either use the con­tact form here or con­tact the EiC direct­ly @ J.Bray@supernerdland.com


These are our five core prin­ci­ples:

1. We take pride in our work, and respect the work of others.

(1)    Our con­tent pro­duc­ers will pub­lish under a sin­gle pseu­do­nym or their real name, and make their con­tact infor­ma­tion avail­able to the gen­er­al pub­lic.

 

(2)    Content pro­duc­ers should use their byli­nes only in con­junc­tion with mate­ri­al that they have pro­duced. Content pro­duc­ers should not attach their names to reprint­ed press releas­es or arti­cles pro­vid­ed by pub­li­cists.

 

(3)    Content pro­duc­ers do not pla­gia­rize con­tent. Material from oth­er sources should be cred­it­ed, and active­ly hyper­linked if pre­sent­ed online.

 

(4)    Originators of unique infor­ma­tion or opin­ions should be acknowl­edged in any work indebt­ed to them, and the source mate­ri­al active­ly hyper­linked if pre­sent­ed online.

 

(5)    Content pro­duc­ers should always hon­or copy­right laws, includ­ing those per­tain­ing to videos and pho­tographs.

 

(6)    To assure accu­ra­cy, press releas­es and mate­ri­al from oth­er sources should be sub­stan­ti­at­ed. Secondhand infor­ma­tion, such as rumors pub­lished by a com­pet­ing pub­li­ca­tion, should not be pre­sent­ed as fact.

 

(7)    Factual errors should be cor­rect­ed prompt­ly and promi­nent­ly.

 

(8)    Expression of opin­ion, edi­to­ri­als and arti­cles devot­ed to the writer’s own views should be clear­ly labeled as such and thus eas­i­ly dis­tin­guished from news reports.

 

(9)    Social media is not a refuge from the expec­ta­tions of exem­plary con­duct. Content pro­duc­ers should take the gold­en rule into con­sid­er­a­tion here. “One should treat oth­ers as one would like oth­ers to treat one­self.”

2. We do not abuse our positions.

(1)    Content pro­duc­ers should not flaunt their titles in hopes of secur­ing favors for them­selves, their friends or their rel­a­tives. Favors could include pre-release items; desir­able con­sid­er­a­tion; par­ty invi­ta­tions or free games, movies, comics, books, etc.

 

(2)    Content pro­duc­ers should not accept gifts with a com­mer­cial val­ue, whether sent to them direct­ly or dis­trib­ut­ed at an event. Gifts should be returned to the sender or donat­ed to char­i­ty. Review events them­selves are viewed as gifts and will be avoid­ed.

 

(3)    Content pro­duc­ers should very care­ful­ly weigh invi­ta­tions to par­tic­i­pate in media din­ners and oth­er invitation-only events at which atten­dees will be fet­ed with food and drink. It is worth remem­ber­ing that only the most financially-fit orga­ni­za­tions are sit­u­at­ed to host such affairs, and jour­nal­ists risk cre­at­ing the per­cep­tion of bias by par­tic­i­pat­ing in them.

 

(4)    Content pro­duc­ers should refuse sam­ples or free copies of games, oth­er soft­ware, hard­ware, or any oth­er pro­duct which they don’t intend to eval­u­ate for pub­li­ca­tion.

 

(5)    Content pro­duc­ers should not sell or oth­er­wise prof­it from sam­ples or free copies they receive in the course of their work.

 

(6)    Content pro­duc­ers attend­ing events for per­son­al plea­sure should not use their posi­tion to gain access, dis­count­ed or free admis­sion.

3. We avoid conflicts of interest.

(1)    We are com­mit­ted to the absolute sep­a­ra­tion of edi­to­ri­al respon­si­bil­i­ties and adver­tis­ing inter­ests. If an arti­cle or pub­li­ca­tion receives spon­sor­ship, it must be clear­ly not­ed.

 

(2)    Content pro­duc­ers should not make deals in exchange for access, spe­cial treat­ment or dis­counts. They should not vet sto­ry angles with pub­li­cists, allow sources to pre­view cov­er­age or make promis­es con­cern­ing sto­ry place­ment.

 

(3)    Content pro­duc­ers should not enter commercially-sponsored con­tests pro­mot­ing speci­fic prod­ucts.

 

(4)    Content pro­duc­ers should not write about or cov­er orga­ni­za­tions which employ them, or with which they are polit­i­cal­ly or finan­cial­ly involved.

4. We recognize and respect diversity.

(1)    While pure objec­tiv­i­ty is impos­si­ble, con­tent pro­duc­ers should aim to acknowl­edge and exam­ine com­pet­ing points of view.

 

(2)    Content pro­duc­ers should present oppos­ing view­points fair­ly and accu­rate­ly.

 

(3)    Content pro­duc­ers should avoid per­pet­u­at­ing stereo­types and prej­u­dices.

5. We are committed to total transparency in our work.

(1)    If con­tent pro­duc­ers accept any­thing for free, includ­ing a game title or pro­duct sam­ple, it must be acknowl­edged in cov­er­age of the item or expe­ri­ence.

 

(2)    If con­tent pro­duc­ers cov­er cur­rent or for­mer employ­ers, co-workers, friends or rel­a­tives, the rela­tion­ship must be dis­closed.

 

(3)    If con­tent pro­duc­ers sus­pect they received spe­cial treat­ment in the course of report­ing a sto­ry, they should share their sus­pi­cions with their read­ers.

6. We aim to minimize harm and protect sources

(1)    Content pro­duc­ers will aim to min­i­mize harm when report­ing on events and issues, in our reviews and impres­sions, and oth­er cov­er­age. This means ensur­ing we are as fac­tu­al as pos­si­ble when pub­lish­ing, cor­rect­ing errors in a time­ly fash­ion, and respect­ing our sources and sub­jects pri­va­cy.

 

(2)    Content pro­duc­ers will always weigh whether the need for infor­ma­tion to be pub­lic is more than the harm that infor­ma­tion being pub­lic may incur. They will also respect the fact that pri­vate peo­ple have a right to con­trol infor­ma­tion about them­selves more so than pub­lic fig­ures or peo­ple who seek pow­er, influ­ence or atten­tion. They will weigh the con­se­quences of broad­cast­ing per­son­al infor­ma­tion thus­ly.

 

(3)    Content pro­duc­ers will weigh use of anony­mous sourcing. We strive to always ful­ly attrib­ute quotes and claims, but there may­be times that use of an anony­mous source is nec­es­sary when cov­er­ing an issue or event. Content pro­duc­ers will explain why anonymi­ty was grant­ed when the infor­ma­tion is deemed rel­e­vant and nec­es­sary to cov­er­age.

 

(4)    When using anony­mous sources, con­tent pro­duc­ers will work to pro­tect the iden­ti­ty of the source. SuperNerdLand and staff will nev­er reveal anony­mous sources used, except in cas­es of court order or grand jury.

 

(5)    All com­mu­ni­ca­tion under SuperNerdLand emails, social net­work pri­vate mes­sages, phone or VOIP calls, and postal cor­re­spon­dence are con­fi­den­tial and will nev­er be used out­side of SuperNerdLand with out per­mis­sion.

If con­tent pro­duc­ers, edi­to­ri­al staff or man­age­ment are found to not be uphold­ing the­se stan­dards then dis­ci­pli­nary action will occur, up to and includ­ing removal from the site.

 

(Updated 04/29/2015: Updated Section 2, Line 2 to Read: Content pro­duc­ers should not accept gifts with a com­mer­cial val­ue, whether sent to them direct­ly or dis­trib­ut­ed at an event. Gifts should be returned to the sender or donat­ed to char­i­ty.)

(Update 05/27/2015: Updated Section 2, Line 2 to add: Review events them­selves are viewed as gifts and will be avoid­ed.)

(Update 05/28/2015: Added Section 6: We aim to min­i­mize harm and pro­tect sources. Added “If con­tent pro­duc­ers, edi­to­ri­al staff or man­age­ment are found to not be uphold­ing the­se stan­dards then dis­ci­pli­nary action will occur, up to and includ­ing removal from the site.”)

(Update 6÷10÷2015: Updated Section 1, Line 2 to clar­i­fy: Content pro­duc­ers should take the gold­en rule into con­sid­er­a­tion here. “One should treat oth­ers as one would like oth­ers to treat one­self.”)