Fact Checking

Talk (16)


Ingrid Strauch

"Hi Gordon, just fixed. I think this l..."

gordon gow

"The link in this sentence is dead: "C..."
Mohamed Salih

Mohamed Salih

"Great effort indeed, I hope you are o..."
Patricia Mirasol

Patricia Mirasol

"Hello, Just a note: Politics in th..."

Hi!  We are a friendly group of WikiTribuners who are interested in community fact-checking of news, both news published by us at WikiTribune, but also the writing of “fact-check” articles about stories out in the wider media.

Users can also talk about the subject by clicking on the TALK tab above or using the button below.

Please expand this project in anyway you see fit and create new sections.

Discuss anything related to this project



  1. Goals
  2. Story suggestions
  3. Existing stories: Read, comment on or EDIT these
  4. Fact checking websites
  5. WT Factchecking Methodology


1. Goals

  1. Educating the community about the fact-checking process.
  2. Delineate for the WT community and staff some definitions of fact, assertion, and opinion.
  3. Fact-checking news stories
  4. Craft context to address ambiguity (FactCheck).
  5. Collecting a list of independent sources to help in fact-checking.
  6. Covering fact-checking conferences, summits, news, etc
  7. Create a comprehensive checklist for articles. Craig Silverman has done a lot of work on this.


2. Story suggestions

You can add story ideas for coverage to this page


3. Existing WikiTribune stories: Read, comment on or EDIT these

Q&A: Tim Berners-Lee on net neutrality and why he won’t have Alexa in the house

How to spot fact from online fiction

Lies 1, truth 1 in U.S. election campaign – Oxford

Fake news is ‘journalistic warfare’ says New Yorker’s chief fact-checker

Who are fact checkers and what do they do?

Big Read: How fact checking evolved in the internet era

Too good to be true? How to verify online images


4. Fact checking websites

By subject:

By region:


International Fact-Checking Network (IFCD)
IFCD code of principles (47 signatories linked)


Whole region: Africa Check


Bosnia & Herzegovina: Istinomjer
Czech Republic: Demagog
France: France 24 Les Observateurs, Le Monde DécodeursLibération DésintoxLibération CheckNews
Georgia: FactCheck Georgia
Germany: Correct!v
Italy: Pagella PoliticaClimi AlterantiBUTAC
Portugal: Observador Fact Check
Republic of Ireland: The Journal Fact Check
Serbia: Istinomer (Serbian version)
Spain: El Objetivo
Sweden: Viralgranskaren
Turkey: Dogruluk
UK: Full FactFactCheck Northern Ireland

North America:

US: AP Fact Check,, PolitiFact, The Washington Post Fact Checker
Canada: FactsCan, (Canada archives), Canada Fact Check

South America:

Argentina: Chequeado
Brazil: Agência LupaAgência Pública – TrucoAos FatosUOL Confere
Colombia: Colombiacheck

South Asia/Oceania:

Australia: The Conversation FactCheckRMIT ABC Fact Check
Philippines: Vera Files
Whole region: South Asia Check

5. WT Fact checking Methodology

when checking news stories pay attention to these parts :

1- Images

Google has is very helpful tool that helps checking images that tell if the image is irrelevant and appeared before in other news   stories

2- Quotes

3- Numbers and statistics

4- Other claimed or stated facts.


Discuss which fact checkers should be added or removed from the list


History for projects "Fact Checking"

Select two items to compare revisions

13 May 2018

13:39:08, 13 May 2018 . .‎ Christian Eaton (Updated → Fixed typo)

27 April 2018

15:30:46, 27 Apr 2018 . .‎ Ingrid Strauch (Updated → dead link fixed)

23 April 2018

16:29:22, 23 Apr 2018 . .‎ Ingrid Strauch (Updated → internal link; typo)
16:15:23, 23 Apr 2018 . .‎ Ingrid Strauch (Updated → website added; internal links set)

22 March 2018

13:42:01, 22 Mar 2018 . .‎ gordon gow (Updated → added Canadian fact check sites)

25 February 2018

13:46:56, 25 Feb 2018 . .‎ Kevin Cook (Updated → clarification)

20 February 2018

16 February 2018

16:56:20, 16 Feb 2018 . .‎ Harry Ridgewell (Updated → changing button says)
16:55:29, 16 Feb 2018 . .‎ Harry Ridgewell (Updated → minor edit)
16:54:16, 16 Feb 2018 . .‎ Harry Ridgewell (Updated → adjusting list)
16:47:16, 16 Feb 2018 . .‎ Harry Ridgewell (Updated → adding list)
16:34:58, 16 Feb 2018 . .‎ Harry Ridgewell (Updated → minor edit)
16:26:47, 16 Feb 2018 . .‎ Harry Ridgewell (Updated → picture added)
16:19:38, 16 Feb 2018 . .‎ Harry Ridgewell (Updated → bold button)
15:59:16, 16 Feb 2018 . .‎ Harry Ridgewell (Updated → update)
13:48:01, 16 Feb 2018 . .‎ Jessica Brockington (Updated → Added #6.)
06:34:07, 16 Feb 2018 . .‎ Charles Anderson (Updated → publish)

15 February 2018

19:03:07, 15 Feb 2018 . .‎ Jonathan Miller (Updated → role of context in fact checking)

13 February 2018

19:05:24, 13 Feb 2018 . .‎ Kevin Cook (Updated → layout tweaks)

11 February 2018

20:11:13, 11 Feb 2018 . .‎ Peter Bale (Updated → Minor edits and WikiProject CATEGORGY)
17:56:24, 11 Feb 2018 . .‎ Kevin Cook (Updated → added tag)
17:26:19, 11 Feb 2018 . .‎ Jonathan Miller (Updated → definitions)
16:21:04, 11 Feb 2018 . .‎ Kevin Cook (Updated → fixed typo, minor corrections)
16:04:44, 11 Feb 2018 . .‎ Jimmy Wales (Updated → opening page per suggestion of Mohamed)

Talk for Project "Fact Checking"

Talk about this Project

  1. The link in this sentence is dead: “Create a comprehensive checklist for articles. Craig Silverman has done a lot of work on this.”

  2. Hello,

    Just a note: Politics in the Philippines is very divisive nowadays. Most journalists and content creators are identified as either pro- or anti-administration. In fact, very few Filipinos are actually truly neutral about whether or not they support the current powers-that-be. That said, I wonder about the Philippine fact-checking websites listed here. It happens to be identified with a vocal administration critic.


  3. Currently, when an article includes sources and references, they appear at the end in a fenced-off box labeled Sources & References. You may have thought of this, but I will in any case suggest placing fact-checking and contexts in a similarly formatted box, labeled Context & Facts, after the article and above Sources & References. This construction is reminiscent of endnote and reference construction and may have a more acceptable connotation than fact-checking for those inured or even put off by the term. My notion here is to make fact-checking more inviting to a broader audience.

  4. Hi guys. I have added a list of fact checking websites at the bottom for everyone to contribute to. Please add more to any sections. We are particularly lacking in fact checking websites for Africa, South America and Asia.

    1. Great effort indeed, I hope you are on our Slack? we are discussing how we should move this project forward, there are many questions not answers yet such as the proper methodology we should consider to engage the crowd in fact checking. if you are not there yet I hope to join us, I’m sure will add a lot to the group.

  5. How will this manifest within WikiTribune? This is an area I feel passionately about, and I am keen to contribute in any way I can. But as someone with no journalistic experience, I’d find it useful for those more experienced to put together a wiki of some form.

    I’m particularly keen to learn what measures one could take to avoid personal bias and effectively combat one’s own cognitive dissonance.

  6. “but also the writing of “fact-check” articles about stories out in the wider media”

    and how do you think the wider media will react to that?

  7. I just wanted to share this important link from Duke university, they keep a track of fact checking organizations from a round the globe, maybe it would help to look to what other have done so far and what approaches they take:

  8. I’m finding articles with assertions not supported with fact, though the assertions may leave the reader with the impression that they are facts. As assertions they take on the guise of hypotheses supported by other assertions and background information, creating a non-neutral tone and point of views. This, I imagine, can be a touchy subject, but one than can be addressed with some definitions from staff members, not rules necessarily, more consensus standards precise enough so community editors can better suggest edits and rewrites.

    1. The staff are instructed — almost in real time — to back up and be able to back up any assertions they might make or publish in content from the community. I intend to be more explicit on this shortly but it is central to the evolution of the product: no glib assertions or claims which cannot be justified or which use inflamatory language for effect.

      1. Here’s an example from Jack Barton’s recent Laurie Love piece. Paragraph 5:

        The case was closely watched by human rights groups who say the U.S.-UK extradition system, established under a 2003 treaty, is slanted in favor of U.S. authorities, and does not provide UK citizens with the protections they are due under UK law.

        It is, no doubt, a fact that human rights groups said this, but the assertion is nonetheless imbedded in this fact; that the quote is a fact trivializes the issue. Further down Jack devotes a section, six paragraphs to the question Imbalanced Partnership? Again, that various parties make assertions shouldn’t allow those assertions to be transformed into facts. But, without something about what the Americans might have to say, these assertion–clothed in the reality of their existence–take on the guise of facts, in part because there are no offsetting arguments.

        Jack might have called somebody at the American Embassy for a response. They or whoever he chose to query might in fact have responded in a way validating the oppositions assertions–fine with me. But without further inquiry which might also have included why the Lords held what they did about extradition, there is, at the very least, a less than neutral tone and the suggestion of a biased point of view.

        Quoted assertions are merely fact wrapped assertions. I don’t care what the truth turns out to be, as long as there is some examination of the various points of view.

        I don’t mean to pick on Jack. I can point to a variety of other instances.


        1. I’ll take a look Jonathan. One of the beauties about the way WikiTribune articles a working out in the real world is that they tend to last longer than a single news cycle so if we the story isn’t as clear or even balanced as it should be or as informed as it can be it is fixed and improved, transparently. One of the key points of doing the Love story was to get at this issue of whether extradition works both ways which it is pretty clear that it does not but the story does need to show how and why that may be the case.

          1. Great, we talked at the Slack chat yesterday how to ease the burden of article evolution both technologically and in appearance. It was a fascinating gathering. Sorry you weren’t there but we’ll see you at the next one.

            BTW do you want us commenting on balance as we read? I’m afraid some of this stuff is too pointed and better comes from you or other editors. Maybe I’m wrong.

    2. I’ve re-read the Love piece and it would benefit from a line on what the US view is or precedent. Jack will add a line. I do think the story makes clear the positions involved though with the links to the act and Liberty. I would like to see an explicit US view in there if we can get it.

Subscribe to our newsletter and be the first to collaborate on our developing stories:

Support Us

Why this is important and why you should care about facts, journalism and democracy

WikiTribune Open menu Close Search Like Previous page Next page Back Next Open menu Close menu Play video RSS Feed Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Follow us on Instagram Follow us on Youtube Connect with us on Linkedin Email us Message us on Facebook Messenger Save for Later