Talk for Wiki Project "Wikiproject: Fact checking"

Talk about this Project

  1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

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

    1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

      Hi Gordon, just fixed. I think this link corresponds with the initial one:

  2. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)


    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. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

    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.

    1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

      Jonathon – I think I made the same suggestion (recently, on slack) but described it differently. Seeing how some of the FC examples are visually structured, it seems to me that we can use a template, similar to a wikipedia infobox, to display a FC. This could either be a side-bar in an article, or it can be viewable and citable on its own, or an article can pull text from more than one “fact-check box” and put the info into some other format. I can imagine taking the contact from 3 or 4 fact-check boxes and putting that in a columnar format. Yes?

      1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

        Thanks Ray. Sounds good.

  4. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

    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. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

      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.

    2. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

      have you guys looked at

  5. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

    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. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

    “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. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

    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:

    1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

      Dear Mohamed,

      Happy weekend!

      As you deleted the two images I added to a representative Fact-check instance, I propose n general you consider the paper “For Pope Francis and a few others ‘Realities are more important than ideas.’ ( ).”

      Best regards,

      José Antonio

  8. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

    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. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

      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. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

        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. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

          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. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

            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. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

      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.

      1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

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