Talk:List of fact-checking websites

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of fact-checking websites article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Turkey

Bosphorus Center for Global Affairs's FactcheckingTurkey. I'am pretty sure I read it's owned by Erdogan's close supporter, like 90% of the national medias now, and is basically a tool of propaganda. But yet, it must be documented no ? http://factcheckingturkey.com/syria/5-frequently-voiced-false-claims-about-turkeys-afrin-operation-435 Yug (talk) 22:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reuters.

The Reuters website has a section called, simply, "Reuters Fact Check" - https://www.reuters.com/fact-check

A variety of current topics from the 1st page, as of today:

Correctional officers file racial discrimination charges over guarding of Chauvin at Ramsey County Jail
Men pictured and named on social media were not involved in UK stabbing attack
Knife attack in Reading did not happen during the Black Lives Matter protest
The folded flag is not reserved exclusively for veterans
Tim Tebow did not kneel during the national anthem to protest abortion
“ANTIFA against bikers” banner has been photoshopped
Letter about new UK 'governmental policy' on microchips is fabricated
Couple pictured did not injure a police horse by throwing a brick at it in London
Photograph showing adult movie star Ron Jeremy with Melania Trump is photoshopped
Derek Chauvin is not a registered Democrat, among other claims

Thank you for your time, Wordreader (talk) 00:08, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wordreader Wow, 3+ years and nobody added this. I'll do it shortly. It's listed on IFC: https://ifcncodeofprinciples.poynter.org/profile/reuters _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:25, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Website or service?

Should this (and the category) be renamed to Fact-Checking Service? Betterkeks (talk) 20:48, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Betterkeks I think website is a more common term. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion criteria

In order to make this list manageable, I suggest an inclusion criteria for entries being notable on their own, or referenced by high-quality independent sources. --Hipal (talk) 23:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hipal: Template:Editnotices/Page/List of fact-checking websites.--Renat 23:51, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RenatUK:, I don't know what that is. Could you explain? --Hipal (talk) 01:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is the editnotice for this article, the message that is displayed above the editing field when a user edits the article. The current inclusion criterion is "Each website on this list should be cited to at least one reliable source that is not the website itself." — Newslinger talk 01:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. When you created it, you commented on an overly restrictive inclusion criteria, but I cannot find what that criteria might have been. Can you find it? --Hipal (talk) 02:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When I first created the editnotice at Special:Diff/946600965, I used {{Editnotice for lists of companies and organizations}} as the editnotice, which stated, "Each list entry should have its own Wikipedia article." However, very few entries in this list have their own Wikipedia articles, so to avoid deleting most of the list, I changed the editnotice a few minutes later at Special:Diff/946601191 to the current one: "Each website on this list should be cited to at least one reliable source that is not the website itself." We can, of course, tighten the requirement. — Newslinger talk 02:41, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Independent RS calling it a "fact-checking website" is essential. I don't oppose making notability an addition criterion, but notability on its own means we would have to list FactCheckArmenia.com as a legit fact checking website. (t · c) buidhe 23:56, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How about we add some clear criteria about entries being true fact checking sights? --Hipal (talk) 01:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

War on Fakes

According to the BBC and the DW, there is an untrustworthy website War on Fakes that focuses on the war in the Ukraine. Just a heads up in case anybody tries to add it to this list. Sjö (talk) 06:52, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sjö It has been added a while ago. Just letting you know. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Adair

There's a journalist called Bill Adair. Seeing this article, I found out the link literally said "Bill Adair (looser)" [sic], so I figured I'd remove it. If it means the journalist, please let me know. I know it's probably not a common choice of names, but I wanted to know. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 10:51, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I'm not sure how many months/years did this ever last until I noticed it. Can't believe this piece of vandalism(?) was even overlooked within a sneaky redlink, to begin with. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 10:52, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Online surveys

Is ugov-review a legitimate survey for money company? 184.55.137.43 (talk) 16:16, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

facts checking sites

Curiosity Station is a site where you can find all things based on facts and research, from science and history to pop culture and current events. 180.92.129.127 (talk) 00:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Each entry on this list requires coverage from at least one reliable secondary source that is not the website itself. Do any reliable secondary sources cover Curiosity Station? — Newslinger talk 02:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

link was broken

Hello. I found a link that was broken. Please check it. This link comes from the 109th reference, located in the content of the UK. ZHANGQI1066 (talk) 04:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New fact-checking site

I found a new fact-checking site where you can verify the credibility of your news.[https://tfc-taiwan.org.tw/]https://tfc-taiwan.org.tw/ Hhhlx (talk) 04:41, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New fact-checking site

I found a new fact-checking site We can check the truth of the news Linziyu1823 (talk) 04:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

facts checking site

Hello.I found a new facts-checking site. please check it. Reuters Fact Check: Operated by Reuters and headquartered in London, UK, its coverage and investigation cover news events and topics around the world. ZHANGQI1066 (talk) 04:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fact checking website

Chinese Mainland also has a fact checking website, which is a link for you to view WANGYIFAN2024 (talk) 04:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fact checking website

I have found a new website that can verify the authenticity of information, named Media Bias/Fact Check. 왕예화 (talk) 05:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New fact-checking site

Hello. I found a new fact-checking website. Please check it out. which is a link.Rachel.zrq (talk) Rachel.zrq (talk) 05:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to the websites

How are we resolving the issue of linking to the websites mentioned while abiding by WP:EL? See Wikipedia_talk:External_links#ELs_and_lists_of_websites. I think this list needs to, well, link to the websites we mention, like many other lists of websites do (see examples in the linked discussion). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's normal and appropriate to include the names/links of websites in any "List of websites".

WP:ELLIST gives an example of how to format such links when the list is organized as a table (which is what most Wikipedia:Featured lists use). Since this page currently uses bulleted lists, then I suggested adding them as a simple parenthetical. I think it will significantly improve the value of the article to readers.

If anyone's curious about the balance that the Wikipedia:External links guideline is trying to strike, then here are some of the considerations:

We normally don't want external links in the body of the article. Sticking something like "Example is a company founded in 2012" in the middle of a paragraph of prose is bad.
The ==External links== section should be kept short. There are more than 100 websites named in this list. The ==External links== section should never have 100 links in it. (It usually shouldn't even have ten.)
If you put 100+ websites into the ==References== section, then a poorly sourced list will look like it has 100+ reliable sources. This is not good. Also, readers who wanted to compare the listed websites would have to scroll back and forth.
We want to keep the name itself clear for linking to a Wikipedia article. "The website for WhatamIdoing's Gas Station (https://www.example.com) is famous for its use of color" is better than "The website for WhatamIdoing's Gas Station is famous for its use of color".

The solution we've arrived at, in the course of many years of discussions, is to permit URLs to certain official sites, in lists (but not ordinary prose or "the body"), when editors believe – using common sense and their best judgement – that having these links on the page would be better for readers than not having these links. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of sites that are no longer publishing

Should sites (such as ABC Fact Check) that are no longer actively fact checking be removed from the list? It is still accessible and has a lot of previous fact checks. Oliisawesome (talk) 11:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should keep them and note if they are no longer publishing for the reasons you listed - still have a lot of content to offer Superb Owl (talk) 03:56, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Change to table format

Proposing a change to a table format. This table could still be sortable by country, membership in IFCN, and other attributes including whether it is active or not Superb Owl (talk) 03:57, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]