Talk:Fact-checking

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2019 and 1 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Siddkumaran.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 April 2020 and 20 June 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cfdrury.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 October 2017 and 17 November 2017. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Vdboschsj.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Should there be an article on Circular Reporting?

One thing fact checkers do is prevent circular reporting - where one source reports something, this is used to write a story at a second source, and the first source uses the second story to back up its initial claim.

E.g.: Newspaper A writes that taxes will fall, making up the story from thin air, or before it has been confirmed by anyone. Paper B sees the story and also reports that taxes will fall, without stating where they got the story from. Paper A sees paper B's story, and thinks it is independent verification of their initial story. As a result, what was baseless conjecture becomes presented as backed-up fact.

One example is during the Yom Kippur War. Before fighting broke out, the Americans (CIA) reduced their alert level/belief that war was going to break out. This caused the Israeli intelligence services to reduce their estimation of the threat level to their country, as they thought that the US knew better, and that they didn't think a war was going to happen. UNFORTUNATELY, the Israelis were unaware that the US only reduced their alert levels because they thought the Israelis didn't seem worried that a war was going to happen (and the American's thought the Israelis would know better, since they were closer to the enemy and had more to lose). The result was that both sides lowered their alert levels. --85.92.185.85 17:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• See Circular reference Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 07:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The phenomenon is certainly worth mentioning but I'm not sure it needs an article of its own - I'd suggest adding it to Journalism_sourcing if it's not already covered there. Barnabypage (talk) 10:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

I see that there is a section that is not present, that is criticism of fact checkers. Recently, there has been criticism criticism of fact checkers from both sides of the Political spectrum here in the United States. Perhaps a new section is in order?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

There has been significant criticism of political fact checkers, namely that opinion writing is done under the guise fact-checking. For example, political fact checkers will call out a candidate for something they didn't say, just because they omitted potential counterarguments. The argument is that fact checkers do this frequently when the candidate has not actually said anything factually incorrect. This is opinion writing, not fact checking. Fact checkers are also accused of using dubious arguments to call into question factual claims that run counter to the fact checkers' political goals. In any case, the omission of a section on criticism of fact checkers, which is common, makes the validity of this article highly suspect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.71.49 (talk) 04:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Adding an entry for CiteEvidence.org

Hi Mean As Custard, I tried to add an entry for CiteEvidence.org along with the other fact checking services using language that was not self-promoting but simply matter-of-factual and brief. The service has been in existence for a long time already; past any promotion phase if there even was one. The service should be added along with the rest for completeness since it is perfectly relevant to the section. Perhaps you will undo your revert or add your own entry after you have verified the service on your own? Al Johnson (CE) (talk) 19:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

It will have to wait for someone without a conflict of interest to consider adding it. . . Mean as custard (talk) 19:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Aren't you without a conflict of interest? There's no time like the present ;) Al Johnson (CE) (talk) 17:31, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

@Al Johnson (CE): you need to cite independent sources establishing the notability of your service, please see Wikipedia:Notability; then draft a paragraph below in this talk page, which could be copied over to the main article if appropriate. Fgnievinski (talk) 00:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

@Fgnievinski: The Notability page only pertains to stand-alone articles, not article content. I would agree the site probably does not qualify for its own article at this time. For article content it does refer to Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight which is maybe kind of relevant. The inline list under Modern innovations could include CiteEvidence.org and also a list item under Organizations and website:United States for balance. The site may not be considered "prominent" at this time depending on who you talk to, but it is modern and innovative, imho.

Here is a possible list item that could go under Prominent fact checkers, United States, if you think the site is prominent enough at this time:

• CiteEvidence.org: A wiki site that, in conjunction with its Fact Checker browser extension, allows anyone with a browser to add their own fact checking annotations to non-fiction documents (news articles, government documents, etc.) on the web as well as to view the annotations added by the rest of site's fact checker community. The site uses the familiar Wiki crowdsourcing model to collect and curate evidence citations for commons use. The evidence content is moderated by the site community according to a new system and style for citing evidence analogous to the Bluebook system for citing arguments, but modified and adapted for use in citing documentary evidence.

Thanks, Al Johnson (CE) (talk) 03:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

@Al Johnson (CE): You're exactly right that Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_guidelines_do_not_apply_to_content_within_an_article so Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight is the more pertinent guideline to follow, which reads: "...in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". So we can't just take your word for its prominence, please cite some independent sources talking about your service. Please note WP:SIGCOV: ""Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent." Fgnievinski (talk) 03:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Is "Prominent fact checkers" too restrictive of a heading?

While becoming more familiar with the notability standards, I checked-out the first two entries under "Prominent fact checkers" (their initials are S.C. and J.M.) and could not find any third-party (or 1st party) sources suggesting their prominence as fact checkers. All I could find were reprints of bios that mention that they were both once employed as fact checkers early in their careers. J.M. was even reportedly fired after seven months as a fact checker before moving on to work as a writer. Both are prominent as book authors, but not as fact checkers. As this article says, being a fact checker is a common entry-level job for most newspaper reporters and journalists. So, having "fact checker" on one's resume is not sufficient to qualify them as prominent fact checkers any more than having "reporter" on one's resume makes one a prominent reporter.

Conversely, I would say that Anderson Cooper more closely meets the definition of prominent as fact checker since I've seen him fact check many a conspiracy theory and rumor on his show. This could qualify him a prominent fact checker; a widely-known, at least, and arguably respected fact checker.

Should the heading be changed to be more inclusive or should those two entries be removed? I did not check the others. Ordinarily I would "be bold and edit" per the Wiki-way, but since I have other requests on this page that may seem self-serving, so I'm just making mention of it for the regular editors for this page to decide. Al Johnson (CE) (talk) 21:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I am beginning a rewrite of the lede

...because the led is not a lede, it is an article unto itself, and poorly sourced, and ignoring major fundamental distinctions (ante hoc versus post hoc fact checking, and the different products and aims of each). I have placed an under construction" tag, to let people know work is being done. Please be patient through this evening. Le Prof 165.20.108.155 (talk) 22:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 14 September 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (non-admin closure). Anarchyte (work | talk) 00:21, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

---

Fact checker → Fact checking – Move to "Fact Checking". The article seems better placed on organizations and the journalistic process of fact checking, rather than individuals or groups that are fact checkers. Shaded0 (talk) 18:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support. This seems like a useful refinement of the article scope. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 12:48, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Seems clearer as to what the article covers.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:33, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support. This will clarify the scope of the article and be more intuitive to readers. Safehaven86 (talk) 15:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Much clearer. --McGeddon (talk) 15:35, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Re-adding Individuals section

Shaded0 never removed groups, organizations and individuals completely, so I'm restoring the part of individuals that was deleted. Al Johnson (CE) (talk) 04:53, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Is it 'fact-checker' or 'fact checker'?

Both 'fact-checker' and 'fact checker' are used in the article. What should it be? --Mortense (talk) 17:51, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Fact-check(er/ing) per dictionary.  Done ―Mandruss ☎ 07:04, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Fixed several instances of not using a hyphen in the pre-publication fact-checking section Derpy725 (talk) 19:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

fake fact checking

We're surprisingly behind the times in one of the most important things for Wikipedia. We need a list of fake fact-checking websites. These devious websites are growing rapidly in influence number 2and are also a direct attempt to undermine Wikipedia and its goals. People often try to find out if a fact-checking site is reliable and Wikipedia is one of the first places they look, but they are almost always disappointed. In fact, we don't even list all the reliable fact-checking sites, not even https://mediabiasfactcheck.com! --Espoo (talk) 15:20, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I feel iffy about the list of fact-checkers

I strongly suspect that some or even many of the listed fact-checkers are not in fact notable or adhere to fact-checking principles. It's hard to verify these fact-checkers if they're not English-language and the secondary sources are not English-language. A good place to start is the Poynter Institute's 'International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN)'[1]. There may also be academic sources that list fact-checkers.

As it stands, I recommend removing all fact-checkers unless they're verifiably described as such by high-quality RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Idea: Neutrality (administrator) has already removed organizations without secondary sources today. However, I prefer a different approach. Instead of removing them, why don't we keep them and put {{Citation needed}}, {{Advert inline}}, and/or {{Promotion inline}} only in inappropriate sentences? This alternative solution specifies problems more clearly and encourages Wikipedia editors from certain countries to solve the problems. To be honest, {{third-party}} makes me a bit offended as if the notification criticizes the entire section including non-problematic sentences.

Please also be noticed that both The Reporters' Lab at Duke University and the Poynter Institute's IFCN have limited access outside of the US, especially non-English countries. Thus, Wikipedia editors from such countries are probably struggling to find reliable sources written in English. For example, as a Japanese editor I translated this fact checking article from English to Japanese as well as added two Japanese fact-checkers recently. I could find only one English source as a secondary source, and the rest of secondary sources are in Japanese. One out of the two Japanese fact-checkers is not indexed by Duke's Lab and none of the two is appeared on ICFN.

Moreover, both Duke's database and ICFN are linked with PolitiFact.com as far as I know - PolitiFact.com is operated by Tampa Bay Times, which is owned by Poynter Institute. Bill Adair, the founder of PolitiFact.com, leads the Reporters' Lab at Duke. Relying primarily on Duke's Lab and ICFN may cause a conflict of interest because sometimes other fact-checkers validate/criticize peers such as PolitiFact.com.

For your reference, here are the organizations removed today:

• India - nunayo.news
• Bangladesh - BD Fact Check; Jaachai.com
• Sri Lanka - FactCheck Sri Lanka
• Czech/Hungary/Poland/Slovakia - Demagog
• EU countries - FactCheckEU.org
• Spain - Miniver.org
• Norway - faktisk.no
• Ukraine - Stopfake.org
• Brazil - Agência Lupax; Aos Fatos; E-farsas; Truco no Congresso
• Chile - Del dicho al hecho
• Uruguay - UYcheck --Mis0s0up (talk) 08:49, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, I feel rather iffy about the list as well, but for a different reason: It's long and distracting from educating people about the basic concept. It's a bit more like a internet directory listing than a description of the subject. What do you all think about WP:SPLITting it to a separate List of fact-checking websites? Then we can describe what fact-checking is here, and anyone who wants lists of websites can go to the other page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:55, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:25, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Ante-hoc and post-hoc fact-checking or "Internal" and "External fact-checking"?

Wouldn't "Internal" and "External fact-checking" be better and more clearly understood terms? I notice this study[2] uses those terms. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

In this case, I'd be happy to lose the Latin. What do you think about "pre-publication" and "post-publication"? It's not quite the same split as internal/external (because a newspaper could do post-publication internal fact-checking). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:17, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I've changed my mind. I like your internal/external proposal better. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:36, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the umbrella distinction should be Internal and External--the Latin terms are not relevant in modern publications. Cfdrury (talk) 22:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Computational Fact Checking Section

Should there be a computational fact-checking section? This aspect of fact-checking is becoming more and more relevant as digital platforms churn out mass amounts of information via platforms that don't vet them for accuracy (ie: Facebook). Cfdrury (talk) 20:30, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Fact-checking of viral satire

I do not think there's value in adding text to the first sentence of the lead about how fact-checkers have on occasion clarified that viral satirical items were in fact false. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

History of fact-checking

The article is missing content on the history of fact-checking. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Supplied today (briefly). Kookaburra17 10:21, 28 April 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kookaburra17 (talk • contribs)

Lead needs more balance?

It strikes me that the lead ought to include the fact (sorry) that there are real questions about the effectiveness of fact-checkers. Right now it suggests that there's some consensus—but if less than 1-in-3 Americans trusts them, obviously that premise is thrown into question. Side note: while see that the cited source asserts there's more "relevance" for fact-checking than in the past, it lacks any sort of support, even indirect, for the claim. Interested to know what those involved with this page think—thanks! Elle Kpyros (talk) 20:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Grievance studies affair

In Special:Diff/1176550695/1177137036, 32.220.130.206 (talk · contribs) added the following content (emphasized in bold) and citation to the Fact-checking § Education on fact-checking section:

With the circulation of fake news on the internet, many organizations have dedicated time to create guidelines to help read to verify the information they are consuming. Many universities across America provide university students resources and tools to help them verify their sources. Universities provide access to research guides that help students conduct thorough research with reputable sources within academia. However, even those reputable source have been proven to be compromised, after a group of researchers exposed the corrupted process by submitting over 20 fake academic studies that were then peer-reviewed and authenticated; even though the statistics provided made the experiment impossible. Organizations like FactCheck.org, OntheMedia.org, and PolitiFact.com provide procedural guidelines that help individuals navigate the process to fact-check a source.

References

The added source is a New York Times article describing the Grievance studies affair that does not mention fact-checking. However, the added content improperly interprets the source to claim that reputable sources within academia "have been proven to be compromised", which is a claim that is not verifiable to the cited source. A single incident does not make reputable sources within academia "compromised" in general, and the cited New York Times article makes no such claim.

The disputed content was originally added by 32.220.130.206 (talk · contribs) in Special:Diff/1176540535. I removed it in Special:Diff/1176550695, and 32.220.130.206 edit-warred to re-add it in Special:Diff/1176550695/1177137036. The disputed content should be removed from the article as original research, which is not allowed in Wikipedia articles. Additionally, the remainder of the paragraph should be supported with citations of reliable sources, or removed or rewritten if there are no reliable sources to support it in its present state. — Newslinger talk 06:43, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, forumy, but it would be silly to say that academic publishing isn't in some sense compromised... given repeated fraudulent and biased studies. I imagine a source to support a more specific version of this claim could be found. The issue is more *how* compromised and whether this is at all relevant to fact checking. A few fraudulent studies that eventually are found to be non-repeatable is not the end of the world.

To me the issue with fact checking is that they don't even bother to look at the literature, just find a random professor who says something "acceptable" for the currently suggested policy and then you can claim things. I'm sitting here waiting for details of all of the bad fact checking during COVID to get into the journals. Talpedia 12:16, 26 September 2023 (UTC)