How We Work
- We check facts, not opinions. The claim is reviewed to establish whether it is fact-checkable and/or constitutes hate speech, as opposed to the expression of an opinion.
- We consult relevant sources and investigate all sides to the story. The sources consulted include first and foremost the drafter or quoted individual. Other sources consulted include public data and sources ranging from thematic experts to relevant authorities to ensure all sides of the story are investigated.
- We guarantee double verification. Every story is checked by two fact-checkers to mitigate individual bias and to ensure nothing was forgotten. The story is then reviewed and validated through the team lead.
- We publish our fact-checking report based on the available evidence at that point in time. The fact-checked content will be presented with the relevant rating alongside the narrative and references or proof that justifies it, based on the evidence existing at that point in time.
Definitions
True The claim is rigorous and the content is demonstrably true.
Half True The statement is correct, although it needs clarification additional information or context.
Unproven Evidence publicly available neither proves nor disproves the claim. More research is needed.
Misleading The statement contains correct data, but ignores very important elements or is mixed with incorrect data giving a di”erent, inaccurate or false impression.
False The claim is inaccurate according to the best evidence publicly available at this time.
Harmful A rude, disrespectful, or unreasonable comment that is somewhat likely to make you leave a discussion. Based on algorithmic detection of issues around toxicity, obscenity, threats, insults, and hate speech.