Wirecutter’s journalists are experts in their fields. Our writers and editors come from a range of industries and reporting backgrounds that have equipped us with the knowledge and testing skills to determine if a product is great—or if it sucks. For example, few people in the country know as much about headphones as senior staff writer Lauren Dragan, and few could speak for as long (or with as much enthusiasm) as senior staff writer Tim Heffernan can about air purifiers.
But even experts need help. That’s why we also consult external experts and hustle hard to find the best ones. We keep our pool of sources above-board and diverse by finding them outside our personal networks (and inherent biases), through legitimate institutions, and with careful research.
How we check sources
To vet our sources, we scour their social media accounts, look over their work history and public affiliations, and research if they’ve been interviewed by other publications. If they’re a doctor, we might run their name through Open Payments, which tracks outside industry influence from pharmaceutical companies and the like.
We also ask sources about possible conflicts of interest with a standardized question most often in this format: “To check whether we need to include any disclosures or clarifications in the article, could you let me know if you have any current or past financial ties to any of the products and companies we’ve talked about? For example, patents, funding, or consultancy work?”
An affirmative answer to that question does not necessarily disqualify someone from being an expert in a piece, but it does require a level of transparency to our readers. In our piece on foraging gear, for example, we noted that the foraging expert, Alexis Nikole Nelson, has financial partnerships with Fiskars and Victorinox. Since the focus of the piece was specifically on Nelson’s favorite gear, it was relevant to include the folding scissors and Swiss Army knife she uses, so we simply included a disclaimer about her relationship with the brands who make them.
Other times, a potential conflict is flagged during fact-checking, such as with our piece on stroller wagons. A manufacturer of polyfoam tires was cited as the source for details about the benefits of polyfoam. The manufacturer stood to potentially benefit financially from positive press, and other authoritative, unbiased sources were easily available for this type of information, so we had no reason to use them as a source. Often, assessing conflicts of interest is a matter of editorial judgment, but we always aim to be thorough in our assessment and transparent about our vetting process.
How we source documents
Our expert sources aren’t limited to people. We also turn to authoritative published work: government data, peer-reviewed scientific studies in established journals, CDC recommendations, the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, market research aggregator Statista, or any other nonpartisan, legitimate organization or institution. We use original sources over news stories whenever possible, but we often bolster our research with journalism published by The New York Times and other trustworthy publications. When we do rely on other publications, we try to corroborate individual facts in several places. (The Chicago Guide to Fact-Checking is a handy resource for those who want to learn more about how to assess organizational credibility.)
For guides in niche categories such as snow blowers or cold-brew coffee makers, we often rely on smaller trade groups, nonprofits, or the personal experiences or websites of product enthusiasts for more insight. My all-time favorite Wirecutter source, Paul Sikkema, is so dedicated to the art of snow blowing that he runs an independent website to review snow blowers for fun. Any Wirecutter staffer will tell you that the best sources are not always manufacturers or government institutions, but instead passionate people willing to take time out of their day to share their enthusiasm and earned expertise.
This article was edited by Amber Angelle and Jason Chen.
