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
Discuss anything related to this projectTalk
- Story suggestions
- Existing stories: Read, comment on or EDIT these
- Fact checking websites
- WT Factchecking Methodology
- Educating the community about the fact-checking process.
- Delineate for the WT community and staff some definitions of fact, assertion, and opinion.
- Fact-checking news stories
- Craft context to address ambiguity (FactCheck).
- Collecting a list of independent sources to help in fact-checking.
- Covering fact-checking conferences, summits, news, etc
- 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
You can add story ideas for coverage to this pageEdit
3. Existing WikiTribune stories: Read, comment on or EDIT these
4. Fact checking websites
Whole region: Africa Check
Bosnia & Herzegovina: Istinomjer
Czech Republic: Demagog
France: France 24 Les Observateurs, Le Monde Décodeurs, Libération Désintox, Libération CheckNews
Georgia: FactCheck Georgia
Italy: Pagella Politica, Climi Alteranti, BUTAC
Portugal: Observador Fact Check
Republic of Ireland: The Journal Fact Check
Serbia: Istinomer (Serbian version)
Spain: El Objetivo
Turkey: Dogruluk Payi, Teyit.org
UK: Full Fact, FactCheck Northern Ireland
5. WT Fact checking Methodology
when checking news stories pay attention to these parts :
Google’s Search by Image can be a helpful start. If you suspect an image used in an article may not be new, original or directly relevant to the story, you can upload it or paste its URL in Google’s search box, and see whether the same image has been used elsewhere, whether it pre-dates the events it purportedly depicts, or whether Google has a contrasting description of the contents of the image.
3- Numbers and statistics
4- Other claimed or stated facts.
The Debunking Handbook (PDF. Source: skepticalscience.com) – by John Cook of the University of Queensland and Stephan Lewandowsky of University of Western Australia – is a freely available and potentially useful resource for fact-checking, and in particular for methods of refuting factually incorrect information without inadvertently reinforcing it.
Its central idea is that a researcher / writer should try to reduce “backfire effects” by structuring their refutation carefully. An effective refutation should:
- focus on facts first, not on the myth (giving the inaccuracy prominence strengthens it);
- clearly warn the reader that the myth is false, before he or she encounters it in the text
- explain why or how the inaccuracy / falsehood is incorrect
The Handbook also recommends:
- making the refutation as clear and simple as possible
- framing the refutation in a way that doesn’t threaten ideology / worldview
- “filling the gap” and ensuring the refutation accounts for all the observed features of the inaccuracy
- using graphics and charts where possible, because they’re more effective than text in reducing misconceptions
Discuss which fact checkers should be added or removed from the list
Discuss which fact checkers should be added or removed from the listTalk