CORRECTIV.ORG

Organization: CORRECTIV.ORG
Applicant: David Schraven
Assessor: Laurens Lauer

Background

Correctiv is an independent, non-profit media organization dedicated to in-depth investigations about social and political grievances. It pursues a very community-oriented approach and advocates for transparency and accountability.

Assessment Conclusion

Correctiv Faktencheck has its own newsroom and website within the organization and is transparent about its approach, team member, and methodology. It could be somewhat more detailed about the criteria that guide the selection of claims to check, in particular with regard to readers' request, as well as the proceeding in case of critic. Otherwise, fact-check appear very fair and coherent using high-quality sources, which are transparently disclosed to readers. The applicant meets the criteria of the CoP.

on 11-May-2020 (2 years ago)

Laurens Lauer assesses application as Compliant

A short summary in native publishing language

Die Methodologie könnte etwas detailierter sein mit Blick auf eurer Vorgehen und die im Assesmment genannten Punkte (siehe Requests) - ansonsten haben sich Webseite und auch Artikel merklich weiterentwickelt seit dem letzten Assessment.

Section 1: Eligibility to be a signatory

To be eligible to be a signatory, applicants must meet these six criteria

  • 1.1 The applicant is a legally registered organization, or a distinct team or unit within a legally registered organization, and details of this are easily found on its website.
  • 1.2 The team, unit or organization is set up exclusively for the purpose of fact-checking.
  • 1.3 The applicant has published an average of at least one fact check a week over the course of the six months prior to the date of application. For applicants from countries with at least 5 or more verified signatories need to have at least a fact check a week over the twelve months of publishing track. Consult to factchecknet@poynter.org for confirmation.
  • 1.4 On average, at least 75% of the applicant’s fact checks focus on claims related to issues that, in the view of the IFCN, relate to or could have an impact on the welfare or well-being of individuals, the general public or society.
  • 1.5 The applicant’s editorial output is not, in the view of the IFCN, controlled by the state, a political party or politician.
  • 1.6 If the organization receives funding from local or foreign state or political sources, it provides a statement on its site setting out to the satisfaction of the IFCN, how it ensures its funders do not influence the findings of its reports.

Criteria 1.1
Proof you meet criteria
Please explain where on your website you set out information about your organization’s legal status and how this complies with criteria. Attach a link to the relevant page of your website.

CORRECTIV.ORG
03-Apr-2020 (2 years ago)

Find all about our registration here: https://correctiv.org/kontakt/impressum/

We are registered as a non profit organization with the commercial register of the town of Essen in Germany. Our registration # is HRB 25135

Our factchecking newsroom is a distinct fact-checking project of organization.

Please find attached our registration.

Files Attached
picture_as_pdf 190813_Körperschaft... (487 KB)
Laurens Lauer Assessor
01-May-2020 (2 years ago)

The organization "Correctiv - Recherchen für die Gesellschaft" is a non-profit new organization legally registered in Essen, Germany. It names directors and those legally responsible including its commercial register entry on its website under its "Impressum" section and provided proof of its non-profit status. It has an independent newsroom for fact-checking comprising five designated fact-checkers.


done_all 1.1 marked as Compliant by Laurens Lauer.

Criteria 1.2
Proof you meet criteria
Please answer the following questions – (see notes in Guidelines for Application on how to answer)

 1. When and why was your fact-checking operation started?
 2. How many people work or volunteer in the organization and what are their roles?
 3. What different activities does your organization carry out?
 4. What are the goals of your fact-checking operation over the coming year?

CORRECTIV.ORG
03-Apr-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 2 years ago

1. The fact-checking team was founded in 2017.

2. At the moment (April 2020) we are 5 employed fact-checkers (Tania Röttger, Till Eckert, Alice Echtermann, Bianca Hoffmann, Matthias Bau). Additionally, we work with 3 freelancers (Cristina Helberg, Lea Weinmann, Steffen Kutzner). 

3. We monitor Social Media platforms and different websites, choose which claims we fact-check, investigate them by consulting different sources and publish articles. We have a cooperation with Facebook to link our fact-checks to content on the platform. We are also in contact with fact-checkers from other countries (in the IFCN) to exchange knowledge. We write a regular email newsletter and maintain our profiles on Twitter, Instagram and a Facebook group with about 1.000 members to inform our readers about our fact-checks. We give interviews and workshops about media literacy, disinformation and fact-checking.  

4. As the demand for fact-checks is growing even more, we have enlarged our team in March 2020 and founded a CrowdNewsroom where readers can send us their requests for fact-checks. We would like to professionalize the way we communicate with our readers, hopefully also via Whatsapp. We aim to publish more in-depth background articles about the people and organizations that spread misinformation and to get our community fact-checking project Checkjetzt running.

Laurens Lauer Assessor
01-May-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 2 years ago

The applicant publishes comprehensive information on its website about the newsroom team, its overall approach and future development goals. CorrectivFaktencheck addresses less individual statements made by particular politicians but verifies primarily false or misleading reports online about health, migration, climate change and other publicly relevant topics. These issues are often embedded in Germany's far-right political movement and their online communication networks, which results in hostilities towards the organization from this group whereas the rest of the political spectrum cultivates - in comparison - a more sober rhetoric and interaction with media organizations such as Correctiv.


done_all 1.2 marked as Compliant by Laurens Lauer.

Criteria 1.3
Proof you meet criteria
- The applicant has published an average of at least one fact check a week over the course of the six months prior to the date of application.
- For applicants from countries with at least 5 or more verified signatories need to have at least a fact check a week over the twelve months of publishing track.
- Consult to factchecknet@poynter.org for confirmation.

CORRECTIV.ORG
03-Apr-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 2 years ago

See attached a spreadsheet with all fact-checks that we published in 2020.

We cover disinformation that spreads in Germany / in German language. The topics we often deal with are migration to Germany or Europe, refugees, climate change or health (coronavirus, vaccines). We also react to rumors that follow news events, e.g. crime.

Files Attached
insert_drive_file All fact-checks publ... (35 KB)
Laurens Lauer Assessor
01-May-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 2 years ago

The applicant provided 123 fact-checks published within three month (Jan - March 2020)


done_all 1.3 marked as Compliant by Laurens Lauer.

Criteria 1.4
Proof you meet criteria
The assessor will assess compliance through a review of the fact checks published over the previous three months. No additional information required.

CORRECTIV.ORG
03-Apr-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 2 years ago

x

Laurens Lauer Assessor
01-May-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 2 years ago

The provided fact-checks as well as the last ten pieces published at the time of the assessment cover almost exclusively topics of public interest; that is, public health, migration, and climate change. Another focus is on various crime news touching on migration, religion, and extremism likewise.


done_all 1.4 marked as Compliant by Laurens Lauer.

Criteria 1.5
Proof you meet criteria
Please explain any commercial, financial and/or institutional relationship your organization has to the state, politicians or political parties in the country or countries you cover. Also explain funding or support received from foreign as well as local state or political actors over the previous financial year.

CORRECTIV.ORG
03-Apr-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 2 years ago

We don't have financial or institutional relationships to any political party or politicians in Germany. 

For our fact-checking cooperation, we get financial compensation from Facebook through the 3rd Party Fact Checkers Programme, but Facebook doesn't interfere in our work. We choose freely which topics we fact-check and publish. We explain our cooperation here: https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/ueber-uns/2018/12/17/ueber-die-kooperation-zwischen-correctiv-faktencheck-und-facebook 

Correctiv as a whole receives donations and funding from several foundations. Important supporters are the Rudolf Augstein Foundation, Schöpflin Foundation, Adessium Foundation, Luminate and Open Society Foundation. We also received funding from the Google Digital News Initiative and Mercator Stiftung.

From this money only a small fraction is dedicated to the CORRECTIV Fact Checking - as from the Open Society Foundation or the Google news Initiative.

Also we get small donations from individuals who want to support CORRECTIV. These are sums between 3 and 100 Euros / month. But we don't report on the sum that is dedicated to CORRECTIV as a whole organization and the sum, that is dedicated to the factchecking.

See our transparency report 2/2019 here: https://correctiv.org/ueber-uns/transparenzbericht/ It also includes the memberships of the journalists working for the fact-checking team (e.g. in organizations, sports clubs...)

Also we publish our finances here: https://correctiv.org/ueber-uns/ -> "Finanzen und Förderer"

More information about our finances and the members of our board of trustees and our ethics council can be found here: https://correctiv.org/ueber-uns/

from time to time we get some funding from "Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung" which is a state run agency for education. In 2019 it was 74.140 Euro. The moey was dedicated to our Reporterfabrik.

Laurens Lauer Assessor
01-May-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 2 years ago

CORRECTIV is a non-profit business funded by several foundations as well as by donations of its readers. The organization publishes annual financial report disclosing all income revenues subdivided into private donations, foundations, companies, and the state sector. It likewise specifies its expenses and the projects that receive dedicated grants allowing readers to retrace the financial basis of its operations (https://correctiv.org/ueber-uns/). Correctiv has a policy governing the transparent handling of its finances including the disclosure of the names of donors above 1000€ and commits itself to editorial independence (https://correctiv.org/redaktionsstatut/). Moreover, the financial reports list the memberships of the initiative's members (i.e. https://download.correctiv.org/correctiv-transparenzbericht%E2%80%8B-quartal-2-2019%E2%80%8B.pdf)


done_all 1.5 marked as Compliant by Laurens Lauer.

Criteria 1.6
Proof you meet criteria
If you confirmed the organization receives funding from local or foreign state or political sources, provide a link to where on your website you set out how you ensure the editorial independence of your work.

CORRECTIV.ORG
03-Apr-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 2 years ago

The "Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung" which is a state run agency for education supportet Workshops like. „Freedom for InformationRights for Everybody" - We inform here about this cooperations: https://correctiv.org/ueber-uns/ -> "Finanzen und Förderer"

x

Laurens Lauer Assessor
01-May-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 2 years ago

As stated above, Correctiv specifies the grants designated to particular project and does so in this case, too. The funding does not affect the Faktencheck project but serves the provision of workshops concerned with democratic education.


done_all 1.6 marked as Compliant by Laurens Lauer.

Section 2: A commitment to Non-partisanship and Fairness

To be compliant on nonpartisanship and fairness, applicants must meet these five criteria

  • 2.1 The applicant fact-checks using the same high standards of evidence and judgement for equivalent claims regardless of who made the claim.
  • 2.2 The applicant does not unduly concentrate its fact-checking on any one side, considers the reach and importance of claims it selects to check and publishes a short statement on its website to set out how it selects claims to check.
  • 2.3 The applicant discloses in its fact checks relevant interests of the sources it quotes where the reader might reasonably conclude those interests could influence the accuracy of the evidence provided. It also discloses in its fact checks any commercial or other such relationships it has that a member of the public might reasonably conclude could influence the findings of the fact check.
  • 2.4 The applicant is not as an organization affiliated with nor declares or shows support for any party, any politician or political candidate, nor does it advocate for or against any policy positions on any issues save for transparency and accuracy in public debate.
  • 2.5 The applicant sets out its policy on non-partisanship for staff on its site. Save for the issues of accuracy and transparency, the applicant’s staff do not get involved in advocacy or publicise their views on policy issues the organization might fact check in such a way as might lead a reasonable member of the public to see the organization’s work as biased.

Criteria 2.1
Proof you meet criteria
Please share links to 10 fact checks published over the past year that you believe demonstrate your non-partisanship.
Please briefly explain how the fact checks selected show that (I) you use the same high standards of evidence for equivalent claims, (II) follow the same essential process for every fact check and (III) let the evidence dictate your conclusions.

CORRECTIV.ORG
03-Apr-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 2 years ago

1) https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/2020/03/16/coronavirus-keine-belege-dass-ibuprofen-eine-erkrankung-verschlimmert - we show that there are contradicting opinions of experts about this

2) https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/2020/03/12/islamistischer-und-rechter-terror-in-deutschland-irrefuehrender-vergleich-der-todeszahlen

3) https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/migration/2019/07/25/diesen-zahlen-zur-kriminalitaet-im-kontext-von-zuwanderung-fehlt-kontext

- 2 and 3 show that we take the same standards for statistics regardless the political view

4) https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/2020/03/05/coronavirus-ja-deutschland-hat-schutzausruestung-nach-china-geschickt - if something turns out true we publish the article, even if the website is known to spread disinformation, like Journalistenwatch

5) https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/2020/03/09/dieses-video-entstand-nicht-an-der-grenze-zu-griechenland-sondern-zu-mazedonien - we show that pictures and videos can be used out of context to create disinformation

6) https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/2020/02/27/tatverdaechtiger-von-volkmarsen-ist-kein-muslimischer-marokkaner-mit-deutschem-pass - we react to rumors that can spread hate or prejudice

7) https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/politik/2020/02/18/erneut-radikale-afd-zitate-auf-facebook-im-umlauf

8) https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/politik/2019/10/31/schon-wieder-falsche-gruenen-zitate-im-umlauf

- 7 and 8 show that we take the same standards for quotes of politicians, regardless which party

9) https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/wirtschaft-und-umwelt/2020/02/14/ein-wachsender-gletscher-auf-groenland-bedeutet-nicht-es-keinen-klimawandel-gibt

10) https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/wirtschaft-und-umwelt/2020/02/18/nein-voegel-in-nordwales-fielen-nicht-wegen-einer-5g-anlage-tot-vom-himmel

- 9 and 10 show that we have many different topics of our fact-checks 

We always name our sources and, if possible, provide links to them. If they are not publicly available, we include screenshots – also of important emails. We archive links whenever possible. 

Laurens Lauer Assessor
01-May-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 2 years ago

The provided examples demonstrate the applicants focus on the issue in question regardless of the particular sources. As pointed out, example 2 and 3 do indeed contradict claims representing different political tendencies, which in each case inaccurately overestimate crimes of their respective "target groups", here: Islamic and Nationalists terror. The same holds true for the other examples and a review of the last 10 pieces published at the time of the assessment (05/01/2020): the fact-checks refer to statistics and reliable information, discuss their quality and relevance and conclude the accuracy of the statement in question, not their source.  


done_all 2.1 marked as Compliant by Laurens Lauer.

Criteria 2.2
Proof you meet criteria
Please share a link to a place on your website where you explain how you select claims to check, explaining how you ensure you do not unduly concentrate your fact-checking on any one side, and how you consider the reach and importance of the claims you select to check.

CORRECTIV.ORG
03-Apr-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 2 years ago
Laurens Lauer Assessor
01-May-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 2 years ago

The applicant explains to choose claims depending on their relevance in terms of their prevalence in social media and likely inaccuracy. The notion of "any one side" is accordingly not really applicable since the organization focuses mainly on online mis/disinformation as such, even though it has a notable focus on certain topics: that is, climate change, migration, crime and, more recently, especially public health. These topics, or mis/disinformation about them, respectively, resonate more with certain political groups in Germany, but the fact-checks focus, as already stated, on the issue in question.


done_all 2.2 marked as Compliant by Laurens Lauer.

Criteria 2.3
Proof you meet criteria
The assessor will assess compliance through a review of the fact checks published over the previous year. No additional information required.

CORRECTIV.ORG
03-Apr-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 2 years ago

x

Laurens Lauer Assessor
01-May-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 2 years ago

The applicant notes the political affiliation or interests of sources and explain their significance for the question and their reliability, if used as a factor in the analysis itself.


done_all 2.3 marked as Compliant by Laurens Lauer.

Criteria 2.4
Proof you meet criteria
The assessor will assess compliance through a review of the fact checks published over the previous year. No additional information required.

CORRECTIV.ORG
03-Apr-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 2 years ago

x

Laurens Lauer Assessor
01-May-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 2 years ago

The applicant as well as its holding organization state their commitment to unbiased, non-political work in their bylaws and have an ethics committee to ensure adherence. The organization is a strong advocate for press freedom, human rights, and transparency in the governmental as well as business sector, and it takes emphatically position against anti-democratic tendencies in its social media channels and other publications. This situation occasionally leads to visible conflicts with various social groups, though not on behalf of parties or advocacy groups but basic values.


done_all 2.4 marked as Compliant by Laurens Lauer.

Criteria 2.5
Proof you meet criteria
Please share a link to a place on your website where you publish a statement setting out your policy on non-partisanship for staff and how it ensures the organization meets this criteria.

CORRECTIV.ORG
03-Apr-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 2 years ago
Laurens Lauer Assessor
01-May-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 2 years ago

See Criteria 1.5; otherwise: the social media accounts of the key team of Correctiv Faktencheck do not express support for politicians, political parties or candidates, nor policy issues that would indicate an effect on their work or create such a public appearance.


done_all 2.5 marked as Compliant by Laurens Lauer.

Section 3: A commitment to Standards and Transparency of Sources

To be compliant on sources, applicants must meet these four criteria

  • 3.1 The applicant identifies the source of all significant evidence used in their fact checks, providing relevant links where the source is available online, in such a way that users can replicate their work if they wish. In cases where identifying the source would compromise the source’s personal security, the applicant provides as much detail as compatible with the source’s safety.
  • 3.2 The applicant uses the best available primary, not secondary, sources of evidence wherever suitable primary sources are available. Where suitable primary sources are not available, the applicant explains the use of a secondary source.
  • 3.3 The applicant checks all key elements of claims against more than one named source of evidence save where the one source is the only source relevant on the topic.
  • 3.4 The applicant identifies in its fact checks the relevant interests of the sources it uses where the reader might reasonably conclude those interests could influence the accuracy of the evidence provided.

Criteria 3.1
Proof you meet criteria
The assessor will review the applicant’s use of sources in a randomised sample of its fact checks to assess compliance. No additional evidence is required.

CORRECTIV.ORG
03-Apr-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 2 years ago

x

Laurens Lauer Assessor
01-May-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 2 years ago

The reviewed fact-checks of the applicant demonstrate a stringent sourcing policy: that is, all essential evidence - including the claim's source - must be identified and accessible by the readers. The pieces accordingly provide links where applicable, present important key evidence in form of screenshots, and save unsteady source on appropriate archives.


done_all 3.1 marked as Compliant by Laurens Lauer.

Criteria 3.2
Proof you meet criteria
The assessor will review the applicant’s use of sources in a randomised sample of its fact checks to assess compliance. No additional evidence is required.

CORRECTIV.ORG
03-Apr-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 2 years ago

x

Laurens Lauer Assessor
01-May-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 2 years ago

The sample of fact-checks investigated use almost exclusively primary sources of high quality and the very few secondary sources referred to results of other fact-checkers or reports of legacy media only.


done_all 3.2 marked as Compliant by Laurens Lauer.

Criteria 3.3
Proof you meet criteria
The assessor will review the applicant’s use of sources in a randomised sample of its fact checks to assess compliance. No additional evidence is required.

CORRECTIV.ORG
03-Apr-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 2 years ago

x

Laurens Lauer Assessor
01-May-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 2 years ago

The applicant cites in complicated cases often more than one source (for example: different studies, or a confirmation of its conclusion by an expert), though relies if possible on highly reliable official source to begin with. 


done_all 3.3 marked as Compliant by Laurens Lauer.

Criteria 3.4
Proof you meet criteria
The assessor will review the applicant’s use of sources in a randomised sample of its fact checks to assess compliance. No additional evidence is required.

CORRECTIV.ORG
03-Apr-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 2 years ago

x

Laurens Lauer Assessor
01-May-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 2 years ago

see criteria 2.3


done_all 3.4 marked as Compliant by Laurens Lauer.

Section 4: A commitment to Transparency of Funding & Organization

To be compliant on funding and organization, applicants must meet these five criteria

  • 4.1 Applicants that are independent organizations have a page on their website detailing each source of funding accounting for 5% or more of total revenue for its previous financial year. This page also sets out the legal form in which the organization is registered (e.g. as a non-profit, as a company etc).
  • 4.2 Applicants that are the fact-checking section or unit of a media house or other parent organization make a statement on ownership.
  • 4.3 A statement on the applicant’s website sets out the applicant’s organizational structure and makes clear how and by whom editorial control is exercised.
  • 4.4 A page on the applicant’s website details the professional biography of all those who, according to the organizational structure and play a significant part in its editorial output.
  • 4.5 The applicant provides easy means on its website and/or via social media for users to communicate with the editorial team.

Criteria 4.1
Proof you meet criteria
Please confirm whether you are an ‘independent organization’
or ‘the fact-checking section or unit of a media house or other parent organization’ and share proof of this organizational status.

CORRECTIV.ORG
03-Apr-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 2 years ago

We are a fact-checking section of a parent organization. This is explained here: https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/ueber-uns/2018/10/04/correctiv-faktencheck 

Laurens Lauer Assessor
01-May-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 2 years ago

The applicant is an independent newsroom within its parent organization Correctiv.


done_all 4.1 marked as Compliant by Laurens Lauer.

Criteria 4.2
Proof you meet criteria
If your organization is an “independent organization”, please share a link to the page on your website where you detail your funding and indicate the legal form in which the organization is registered (e.g. as a non-profit, as a company etc).
If your organization is “the fact-checking section or unit of a media house or other parent organization”, please share a link to the statement on your website about your ownership.

CORRECTIV.ORG
03-Apr-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 2 years ago
Laurens Lauer Assessor
01-May-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 2 years ago

The applicant clearly states that it is part of Correctiv - an obvious situation due to its name and integration on the website of the organization, anyway.


done_all 4.2 marked as Compliant by Laurens Lauer.

Criteria 4.3
Proof you meet criteria
Please share a link to where on your website you set out your organizational structure, making clear how and by whom editorial control is exercised.

CORRECTIV.ORG
03-Apr-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 2 years ago
Laurens Lauer Assessor
01-May-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 2 years ago

Correctiv provides comprehensive information about its organizational structure, its members, and additional boards including the organizational structure of its fact-checking team (https://correctiv.org/team/tania-roettger/).


done_all 4.3 marked as Compliant by Laurens Lauer.

Criteria 4.4
Proof you meet criteria
Please share a link to where on your website you set out the professional biographies of those who play a significant part in your organization’s editorial output.

CORRECTIV.ORG
03-Apr-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 2 years ago
Laurens Lauer Assessor
01-May-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 2 years ago

Corrective provides professional profiles about all its members and complies them in case of the fact-checking segment once again in an additional overview (https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/ueber-uns/2019/05/20/unser-team). 


done_all 4.4 marked as Compliant by Laurens Lauer.

Criteria 4.5
Proof you meet criteria
Please share a link to where on your website you encourage users to communicate with your editorial team.

CORRECTIV.ORG
03-Apr-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 2 years ago

Our email addresses are included into our authors profiles. They can be accessed by clicking on the name of the author of any article. 

Example: https://correctiv.org/autor/tania-roettger/ 

Laurens Lauer Assessor
01-May-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 2 years ago

Both Correctiv and the fact-checking newsroom provide various opportunities for users to communicate with the editorial team, or the head of the fact-checking team.


done_all 4.5 marked as Compliant by Laurens Lauer.

Section 5: A commitment to Standards and Transparency of Methodology

To be compliant on methodology, applicants must meet these six criteria

  • 5.1 The applicant publishes on its website a statement about the methodology it uses to select, research, write and publish its fact checks.
  • 5.2 The applicant selects claims to check based primarily on the reach and importance of the claims, and where possible explains the reason for choosing the claim to check.
  • 5.3 The applicant sets out in its fact checks relevant evidence that appears to support the claim as well as relevant evidence that appears to undermine it.
  • 5.4 The applicant in its fact checks assesses the merits of the evidence found using the same high standards applied to evidence on equivalent claims, regardless of who made the claim.
  • 5.5 The applicant seeks where possible to contact those who made the claim to seek supporting evidence, noting that (I) this is often not possible with online claims, (II) if the person who makes the claim fails to reply in a timely way this should not impede the fact check, (III) if a speaker adds caveats to the claim, the fact-checker should be free to continue with checking the original claim, (IV) fact-checkers may not wish to contact the person who made the claim for safety or other legitimate reasons.
  • 5.6 The applicant encourages users to send in claims to check, while making it clear what readers can legitimately expect will be fact-checked and what isn’t fact-checkable.

Criteria 5.1
Proof you meet criteria
Please provide a link to the statement on your website that explains the methodology you use to select, research, write and publish your fact checks.

Laurens Lauer Assessor
01-May-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 2 years ago

The applicant provides a series of articles about its mission/approach, method, rating system as well as further issues like satire policy or how to detect misinformation.


done_all 5.1 marked as Compliant by Laurens Lauer.

Criteria 5.2
Proof you meet criteria
The assessor will review the methodology used in a randomised sample of your fact checks to assess compliance with these criteria. No additional evidence is required.

CORRECTIV.ORG
03-Apr-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 2 years ago

x

Laurens Lauer Assessor
01-May-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 2 years ago

The applicant selects claims to check based primarily on the reach and importance of the claims, and the articles often start with information about its emergence and spread online so far.


done_all 5.2 marked as Compliant by Laurens Lauer.

Criteria 5.3
Proof you meet criteria
The assessor will review the methodology used in a randomised sample of your fact checks to assess compliance with these criteria. No additional evidence is required.

CORRECTIV.ORG
03-Apr-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 2 years ago

x

Laurens Lauer Assessor
01-May-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 2 years ago

In principal, yes. However the project verifies usually quite particular claims by well-suited statistics or scientific studies that address the very claim in question and thus both sides of it, so to speak, at once. The applicant does though evaluate and weight the contra-argument in its reasoning and is open to different points. 


done_all 5.3 marked as Compliant by Laurens Lauer.

Criteria 5.4
Proof you meet criteria
The assessor will review the methodology used in a randomised sample of your fact checks to assess compliance with these criteria. No additional evidence is required.

CORRECTIV.ORG
03-Apr-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 2 years ago

x

Laurens Lauer Assessor
01-May-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 2 years ago

See criteria 2.1


done_all 5.4 marked as Compliant by Laurens Lauer.

Criteria 5.5
Proof you meet criteria
The assessor will review the methodology used in a randomised sample of your fact checks to assess compliance with these criteria. No additional evidence is required.

CORRECTIV.ORG
03-Apr-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 2 years ago

x

Laurens Lauer Assessor
01-May-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 2 years ago

Not really applicable since the majority of fact-checks is concerned with claims/posts that appear on social media channels, gain currency in form of chain letters and otherwise, and thus often do not provide a clear or addressable author.The applicant explained in an email exchange that reporters ask for confirmation if the statement in question is contributed to a particular person, though his/her authorship is not clear (examples:https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/politik/2020/02/05/die-meisten-dieser-zitate-stammen-von-afd-politikern-einige-sind-aber-unbelegt; https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/politik/2020/02/18/erneut-radikale-afd-zitate-auf-facebook-im-umlauf).However, the step is not part of the public methodology and it does not include requests for proof on part of the source, even where applicable (e.g. https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/2020/04/22/faktencheck-zu-stefan-homburg-warum-seine-argumente-zur-reproduktionszahl-des-coronavirus-zu-kurz-greifen). For the great majority of fact-checks, that is online claims, the applicant accordingly meets the criteria, but it might be necessary to reconsider its proceeding in cases with clear authorship.


done_all 5.5 marked as Compliant by Laurens Lauer.

Criteria 5.6
Proof you meet criteria
Please describe how you encourage users to send in claims to check, while making it clear what readers can legitimately expect will be fact-checked and what isn’t fact-checkable. Include links where appropriate. If you do not allow this, explain why.

CORRECTIV.ORG
03-Apr-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 2 years ago

We encourage users in our Facebook group and on Twitter to contact us and send us claims they think should be fact-checked. 

https://www.facebook.com/groups/371914543532346/ 

https://twitter.com/correctiv_fakt 

Since a few weeks we also have a CrowdNewsroom where people can send us claims about the coronavirus: https://forms.crowdnewsroom.org/corona-fakenews/corona-fakenews/slide0 

We always explain that we have a look at everything they send us, but have to decide whether it is suitable for a fact-check or not. How we select is explained here: https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/ueber-uns/2018/10/04/haeufig-gestellte-fragen 

CORRECTIV.ORG
11-May-2020 (2 years ago)

We added the policy concerning 5.6. here:

https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/ueber-uns/2018/10/04/haeufig-gestellte-fragen

-> Wie wählt ihr eure Beiträge aus?

and here:

https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/ueber-uns/2018/10/04/unsere-standards

-> 4. Verpflichtung zur Transparenz der Arbeitsweise

Laurens Lauer Assessor
01-May-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 2 years ago

The applicant encourages readers in various places on its website and social media channels to submit suggestions, but does not really specific what is eligible and what it will consider under which circumstances. It new tool to submit suspicious content is very structured though and might already satisfy the required conditions. 


cancel 5.6 marked as Request change by Laurens Lauer.
Laurens Lauer Assessor
11-May-2020 (2 years ago)



done_all 5.6 marked as Compliant by Laurens Lauer.

Section 6: A commitment to an Open & Honest Corrections Policy

To be compliant on corrections policy, applicants must meet these five criteria

  • 6.1 The applicant has a corrections or complaints policy that is easily visible and accessible on the organization’s website or frequently referenced in broadcasts.
  • 6.2 The policy sets out clear definitions of what it does and does not cover, how major mistakes, especially those requiring revised conclusions of a fact check, are handled, and the fact that some complaints may justify no response. This policy is adhered to scrupulously.
  • 6.3 Where credible evidence is provided that the applicant has made a mistake worthy of correction, the applicant makes a correction openly and transparently, seeking as far as possible to ensure that users of the original see the correction and the corrected version.
  • 6.4 The applicant, if an existing signatory, should either on its corrections/complaints page or on the page where it declares itself an IFCN signatory inform users that if they believe the signatory is violating the IFCN Code, they may inform the IFCN, with a link to the IFCN site.
  • 6.5 If the applicant is the fact-checking unit of a media company, it is a requirement of signatory status that the parent media company has and adheres to an open and honest corrections policy.

Criteria 6.1
Proof you meet criteria
Please provide a link to where you publish on your website your corrections or complaints policy. If you are primarily a broadcaster, please provide evidence you frequently reference your corrections policy in broadcasts.

CORRECTIV.ORG
03-Apr-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 2 years ago
Laurens Lauer Assessor
01-May-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 2 years ago

The project declares in its FAQ that it will transparently correct any mistake and provides an email to submit observations of errors.


done_all 6.1 marked as Compliant by Laurens Lauer.

Criteria 6.2
Proof you meet criteria
The assessor will review the corrections policy to verify it meets critera. No additional information needed.

CORRECTIV.ORG
03-Apr-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 2 years ago

x

CORRECTIV.ORG
11-May-2020 (2 years ago)

We added the policy concerning 6.2. also here:

https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/ueber-uns/2018/10/04/haeufig-gestellte-fragen

-> Was ist, wenn ich einen Fehler bei Euch entdeckt habe?

and here:

https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/ueber-uns/2018/10/04/unsere-standards

-> 5. Verpflichtung zur offenen und ehrlichen Korrektur

Laurens Lauer Assessor
01-May-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 2 years ago

The applicant does only state its commitment to correct mistakes and provides an email for corresponding request but does not spell out a detailed policy that sets out clear definitions of what it does and does not cover, how major mistakes, especially those requiring revised conclusions of a fact check, are handled, and the fact that some complaints may not justify a response.


cancel 6.2 marked as Request change by Laurens Lauer.
Laurens Lauer Assessor
11-May-2020 (2 years ago)



done_all 6.2 marked as Compliant by Laurens Lauer.

Criteria 6.3
Proof you meet criteria
Please provide a short statement about how the policy was adhered to over the previous year (or six months if this is the first application) including evidence of two examples of the responses provided by the applicant to a correction request over the previous year. Where no correction request has been made in the previous year, you must state this in your application, which will be publicly available in the assessment if your application is successful.

CORRECTIV.ORG
03-Apr-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 2 years ago

If readers or publishers contact us with a complaint about our fact-checks, we always investigate if we have to correct something. If we change our articles, we make this transparent in an update / statement below or above the text. 

1) About this article readers told us we made a mistake by not explaining / using the statistics correctly. We did a whole correction of the article and made it transparent in statement. https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/migration/2019/07/25/diesen-zahlen-zur-kriminalitaet-im-kontext-von-zuwanderung-fehlt-kontext 

2) In this case the publisher contacted us and provided further proof of his claims, so we changed our rating. https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/2020/02/20/keine-belege-fuer-angebliche-pruegelattacke-durch-fuenf-afrikaner-in-wien 

Laurens Lauer Assessor
01-May-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 2 years ago

The applicant provides to examples of a correction and update. Both articles clearly state the changes in the beginning (correction) and at the end (update) of the pieces in different font and explain the situation in great detail.


done_all 6.3 marked as Compliant by Laurens Lauer.

Criteria 6.4
Proof you meet criteria
If you are an existing signatory, please provide a link to show where on your site you inform users that if they believe you are violating the IFCN Code, they may inform the IFCN of this, with a link to the complaints page on the IFCN site.

CORRECTIV.ORG
03-Apr-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 2 years ago
Laurens Lauer Assessor
01-May-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 2 years ago

The applicant informs its readers in its 'our standards' section about the principals of the IFCN and points out the possibility to complain about potential violations providing the appropriate link to the IFCN (https://www.ifcncodeofprinciples.poynter.org/complaints-policy).


done_all 6.4 marked as Compliant by Laurens Lauer.

Criteria 6.5
Proof you meet criteria
If you are the fact-checking unit of a media company, please provide a link to the parent media company’s honest and open corrections policy and provide evidence that it adheres to this.

CORRECTIV.ORG
03-Apr-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 2 years ago
Laurens Lauer Assessor
01-May-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 2 years ago

Correctiv declares its commitment to correct mistakes transparently in its editorial policy, see IV.8. (https://correctiv.org/redaktionsstatut/). No example available.


done_all 6.5 marked as Compliant by Laurens Lauer.