Wikiproject: Fact checking

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


There is a need to consider Validity (statistics), which “needs attention from an expert in statistics.” It says “Validity is the extent to which a concept,[1] conclusion or measurement is well-founded and likely corresponds accurately to the real world based on probability.” It adds “… just because a measure is reliable, it is not necessarily valid.”

Is Fact-checking making sure that news are reliable? Should it check they are valid? Today I claimed what follows in a tweet that has an image that starts with:

“What Now for the World!” is the synthesis, to be close to the reality that has emerged in the last 3 decades we need to shift our mindsets to interdependence away from independence…”

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

Copied by and continued in the WikiTribune Documentation of Facts and Fact Checking:

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
Norway: Faktisk
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’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.

2- Quotes

3- Numbers and statistics

4- Other claimed or stated facts.

The Debunking Handbook (PDF. Source: – 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:

  1. focus on facts first, not on the myth (giving the inaccuracy prominence strengthens it);
  2. clearly warn the reader that the myth is false, before he or she encounters it in the text
  3. 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


Image information

  • TODO tags

      Is there a problem with this article? [Join] today to let people know and help build the news.
      • Share

      Subscribe to our newsletter

      Be the first to collaborate on our developing articles

      WikiTribune Open menu Close Search Like 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 Connect with us on Discord Email us