# Editorial Policy: The Standards We Work To Source: https://cricketin.org/editorial-policy [By Rajeev Sathe](/authors/editor-in-chief), Editor-in-Chief. [Reviewed by Karthik Iyengar](/authors/data-editor), Data Editor. Updated 1 Sep 2026. Editorial policy: https://cricketin.org/editorial-policy 18+ Betting money on cricket carries a direct risk of financial loss, and it can become an addiction. Real-money online gaming is banned across India under the PROG Act 2025, which came into force on 1 May 2026. If betting is already costing you money you need, or sleep, or people close to you, the free Tele-MANAS helpline is **14416**, and it runs in 20 languages. Our [page on help for gambling harm](/guides/help-for-gambling-harm-india) lists what else exists. --- See the source, update, correction, independence, and AI-use rules that guide Cricketin’s articles for readers in India. Cricketin uses source-led writing, clear updates, and visible fix. Content decisions must not be sold. a claim must match a source or a shown calculation. This rule explains the standard for legal, tax, cricket, safety, and privacy content. It also tells readers how we handle gaps and AI tools. ## Our standard is simple: show the basis We write for readers who need a clear answer, not a sales pitch. A reader should be able to see what a claim means, where it came from, and when it may need an update. We use short sentences and plain English. A hard word is explained when it first appears. When a question has no confirmed answer, we say that instead of filling the gap with a guess. This rule works with [About Cricketin](/about), our [testing method](/how-we-test), and our [Fix Rule and Log](/corrections). Together, they explain how a page is made and how it changes. ## We start with the closest source We prefer the source that made the rule, record, or number. For a law, that usually means the official Act text. For a court case, it means the judgment or an official court record. For a tax rule, it means the tax department. We may use a reliable legal or news explainer to add context. It does not replace the main text when the main text is available. We link to the outside source in the same paragraph or table row as the claim. For example, the wording of the rule against direct or indirect promotion of online money games comes from section 6 of the [official PROG Act text](https://upload.indiacode.nic.in/view-casepdf?type=act&id=AC_CEN_45_0_00004_2025-32_1778133559220). Our own legal guides point readers to that text rather than asking them to trust a summary. ## The source needed depends on the claim **Table 1. Minimum source standard for common Cricketin claims** | Type of claim | Minimum source | What we show on the page | |---|---|---| | Law, section, or legal date | Official Act, gazette, court record, or government notice | A link next to the claim and the date checked | | Tax rule or rate | Income Tax Department text or official rule | The section name and a source link | | Cricket rule or score method | Official cricket body material where available | A plain explanation and the source | | Maths example | Our shown inputs and formula | Inputs, calculation, result, and limits | | Safety advice | Primary public guidance or a clearly named public body | A link and a limit on what the advice can do | | Site practice | Our published rule and a verified site setting | A tag until the owner verifies the setting | A secondary article can help us find a document. It cannot turn an unverified claim into a fact. If the primary text is missing or unclear, we use the tag What we still need: And explain the open task. ## How we check a fact before it goes live We check the exact wording, the date, the place where the fact applies. the link. We do not copy a number only because several pages repeat it. Repetition is not proof. For a legal statement, we check the named section in the source text. For a calculation, we rerun the sum and state the assumptions. For a site statement, we ask the owner to verify the real setting or process. We keep a page-level source list in the published page. The number of cited sources in the byline is a count, not a quality score. A page with fewer strong sources can be better than a page with many weak ones. ## We update pages when the underlying fact changes Law, court status, tax, and safety information can change. A page should be checked again when a new official text, court order, or government notice changes its answer. A broken source link also needs review. We add an updated date through the site template. A major change should also be explained in the corrections log. A spelling fix does not need the same level of note as a wrong legal section or a wrong number. The page most likely to need fast legal review is [the 2026 online betting law guide](/legal/online-betting-law-india). Related claims sit in our pages on [state gambling laws](/legal/state-by-state) and [Supreme Court cases](/legal/supreme-court-online-gaming-cases). ## Content work is separate from paid work No paid request can decide a page result, source, title, result, or link. We do not sell a place in a ranking because we do not publish rankings of online money-game operators at all. We have no operator affiliate links. Section 6 of the PROG Act bars ad that directly or indirectly promotes or induces a person to play an online money game. The same official text sets out the rule and the related offence. [Read the Act on India Code](https://upload.indiacode.nic.in/view-casepdf?type=act&id=AC_CEN_45_0_00004_2025-32_1778133559220). Paid activity and editorial decisions are kept apart by design, and no paid activity runs today. Who signs off each side is not published yet. The owner must also record the actual revenue model on [the affiliate note page](/affiliate-disclosure). ## AI tools may assist. But they do not prove a claim We may use an AI tool to organise notes, suggest a plain-language outline, or spot a missing question. The tool is not a source. It cannot be cited as proof of a law, date, tax rule, or real-world event. A human editor must check each material claim against the linked source. The editor must also check that a draft does not name an operator, make a recommendation, or add a false detail. We do not publish AI-generated author names, biographies, quotes, or legal citations. The tools used in production, who may use them and the review step each page passes are recorded internally, and that record is revisited when the workflow changes. ## We correct errors openly If a reader, source owner, or editor shows that a material statement is wrong, we check it. If the error is confirmed, we correct the page and add a log entry that says what changed. We do not remove a major error without a trace. A fix note should include the date, page, old meaning, new meaning. the role that approved the change. It should not expose a reader’s private details. Our [fix page](/corrections) contains the public log format. If the evidence is mixed, we can add a note that the point is disputed. If no strong source supports the claim, we remove it or mark it as unverified. ## People, roles, and duty A published role is not proof of a credential, so a byline states the scope, not a qualification. We name the writer and the reviewer on every page, and each name links to a profile that lists the pages that name signs. A byline needs a truthful bio, a topic list that matches what the person actually covers, and a reviewer who is someone else. A page nobody will put their name to does not go out. See [Our Authors and Editors](/authors) for the people who sign pages and [Contact Cricketin](/contact) for the channels that still need to be set up. ## Privacy claims need extra care We do not call a site practice private, anonymous, or compliant unless it has been checked against the real setup. Privacy pages must state what is known and tag what is not yet known. The DPDP Act sets rules on notice and consent. It also gives rights around access, fix, erasure, and complaint help. [Sections 5, 6, and 11 to 13 in the MeitY text](https://www.meity.gov.in/static/uploads/2024/06/2bf1f0e9f04e6fb4f8fef35e82c42aa5.pdf) are the basis for our privacy rule language. Read [the Privacy Rule](/privacy-policy) and [Cookie Rule](/cookies). Both are templates that need a trained review of the real site before release. We use the main source. We read the key line. We show the link. We check the date. We check the sum. We say what is not known. We do not use a guess. We do not hide a paid ask. We fix a major wrong fact. We keep the words clear. A reader can check our work. A reader can tell us when a line is wrong. We read the report. We check it. We show the fix. Facts come first. Clear words help. Short lines help. Source links help. We use all four. ## Questions people ask ### Can a commercial partner change a Cricketin article? No. Paid requests must not decide a source, result, title, or link. We also do not publish operator placement or ranking pages. ### Does Cricketin use AI to write articles? AI may assist with non-source tasks. But it cannot prove a claim. A human editor must check each material statement against the linked source. ### What happens when a source is unclear? We do not guess. Either the claim comes out, or the page states plainly what could not be confirmed, what source would settle it, and the date we last looked. Internal review notes stay internal; a reader gets the finding, not our to-do list. ### How can I ask for a correction? Send the page URL, the words at issue, and supporting material through the verified contact route. Material fix are recorded in the public log.