Doğruluk Payı

Organization: Doğruluk Payı
Applicant: Batuhan Ersun
Assessor: Sarphan Uzunoğlu
Conclusion and recommendations
on 13-Sep-2019 (6 months ago)

Sarphan Uzunoğlu wrote:

Doğruluk Payı is a legitimate and neutral organization, which is followed by different audiences in Turkey. Their contents are totally parallel to their methodology and principles of IFCN. Their methodology and criterions of evaluation are in parallel with their publication practices. They regularly publish analyses and their digital properties enable their readers to access information and make claims as it is expected. Therefore, I highly recommend accepting their application.

on 13-Sep-2019 (6 months ago)

Sarphan Uzunoğlu recommended Accept


Section 1: Organization

Criterion 1a
Proof of registration
Evidence required: Please provide evidence that the signatory is a legally-registered organization set up exclusively for the purpose of fact-checking or the distinct fact-checking project of a recognized media house or research institution.

Doğruluk Payı
12-Sep-2019 (6 months ago)

Doğruluk Payı is a project of Izlemedeyiz Association (On Watch Association). OW is an officially registered NGO in Turkey. Doğruluk Payı is a registered trademark of the organization and the organization has all the intellectual property.

Files Attached
picture_as_pdf Dernek_FaaliyetBelge... (1 MB)
Sarphan Uzunoğlu Assessor
13-Sep-2019 (6 months ago) Updated: 6 months ago

This document proves that Doğruluk Payı is a legitimate fact-checking organization operating under Izlemedeyiz Association (which is a legally recognized organization). Their objectives are parallel to statements of Izlemedeyiz Association. 


done_all 1a marked as Fully compliant by Sarphan Uzunoğlu.

Criterion 1b
Archive
Evidence required: Insert a link to the archive of fact checks published in the previous three months. If you do not collect all fact checks in one place, please explain how the fact-checking is conducted by your organization.

Doğruluk Payı
12-Sep-2019 (6 months ago)

All of our factchecks are available at www.dogrulukpayi.com

Sarphan Uzunoğlu Assessor
13-Sep-2019 (6 months ago) Updated: 6 months ago

Doğruluk Payı is very regularly publishing factchecks in their websites.


done_all 1b marked as Fully compliant by Sarphan Uzunoğlu.

Section 2: Nonpartisanship and Fairness

Criterion 2a
Body of work sample
Evidence required: Please share links to ten fact checks that better represent the scope and consistency of your fact-checking. Provide a short explanation of how your organization strives to maintain coherent standards across fact checks.

Doğruluk Payı
12-Sep-2019 (6 months ago)

Doğruluk Payı looks through statements on daily basis and editorial board picks statements based on their nature of whether they can be fact-checked or not, and the ratio of political parties/fact-checks, to make sure political parties take place in our fact-checks in a ratio with their representation in Turkish Parliament.

1- Recep Tayyip Erdoğan - True https://www.dogrulukpayi.com/iddia-kontrolu/recep-tayyip-erdogan/2002-de-faiz-harcamalari-vergi-gelirlerimizin-yuzde-86-sina-karsilik-geliyordu-bir-baska-ifadeyle-topladigimiz-her-100-liralik-verginin-86-lirasini-faiz-odemesine-ayiriyorduk-2017-kesin-rakamlari-itib

2 - Recep Tayyip Erdoğan - False https://www.dogrulukpayi.com/iddia-kontrolu/recep-tayyip-erdogan/isgucu-arzimiz-yani-isgucune-katilim-orani-gecmiste-hic-olmadigi-kadar-yuksek-bir-seviyeye-cikti

3 - Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu - True https://www.dogrulukpayi.com/iddia-kontrolu/kemal-kilicdaroglu/5-yillik-10-kalkinma-plani-nda-hedef-ne-oldu-gerceklesme-ne-oldu-sapmalar-ne-oldu-beyefendi-senin-hicbir-hedefin-tutmadi

4 - Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu - False https://www.dogrulukpayi.com/iddia-kontrolu/kemal-kilicdaroglu/asgari-ucret-enflasyon-karsisinda-dustu-yani-eridi

5 - Selahattin Demirtaş - True https://www.dogrulukpayi.com/iddia-kontrolu/selahattin-demirtas/ortadogu-dan-turkiye-ye-siginan-hic-kimse-multeci-statusu-alamiyor

6 - Selahattin Demirtaş - False https://www.dogrulukpayi.com/iddia-kontrolu/selahattin-demirtas/turkiye-cumhuriyeti-nin-en-kapsamli-valiler-kararnamesini-gecen-ay-gorduk

7 - Binali Yıldırım - True https://www.dogrulukpayi.com/iddia-kontrolu/binali-yildirim/gecen-sene-ispanya-ile-ticaretimiz-yuzde-19-artti

8 - Binali Yıldırım - False https://www.dogrulukpayi.com/iddia-kontrolu/binali-yildirim/secim-bir-siyasi-faaliyet-degildir

9 - Ekrem İmamoğlu - True https://www.dogrulukpayi.com/iddia-kontrolu/ekrem-imamoglu/bu-sehirde-475-bin-hane-yoksulluk-sinirinin-altinda-yasiyor

10 - Ekrem İmamoğlu - False https://www.dogrulukpayi.com/iddia-kontrolu/ekrem-imamoglu/son-10-yilda-turkiye-6-tane-istanbul-buyuklugunde-tarim-alanini-kaybetti

Sarphan Uzunoğlu Assessor
13-Sep-2019 (6 months ago) Updated: 6 months ago

They provide multiple perspectives/sources for each story and they use profer referencing techniques and they clarify their methodological approach in each story. Their sources are totally visible and referred by links if available. Otherwise they are well-defined.


done_all 2a marked as Fully compliant by Sarphan Uzunoğlu.

Criterion 2b
Nonpartisanship policy
Evidence required: Please share evidence of your policy preventing staff from direct involvement in political parties and advocacy organizations. Please also indicate the policy your organization has as a whole regarding advocacy and supporting political candidates.

Doğruluk Payı
12-Sep-2019 (6 months ago)

Our non-partisanship and fairness policies are available on: https://www.dogrulukpayi.com/~Degerlendirme-Kriterleri

Sarphan Uzunoğlu Assessor
13-Sep-2019 (6 months ago) Updated: 6 months ago

All the members of Doğruluk Payı's editorial board have preserved their objectivity in their work so far. Their social accounts don't seem to show any example of partisanship neither. Likewise, their website and content doesn't have a partisan characteristic and their roof organization (Izlemedeyiz Association) is a very neutral organization too.


done_all 2b marked as Fully compliant by Sarphan Uzunoğlu.

Section 3: Transparency of Sources

Criterion 3a
Sources Policy
Please share a brief and public explanation (500 words max) of how sources are provided in enough detail that readers could replicate the fact check. If you have a public policy on how you find and use sources for your fact-checking, it should be shared here.

Doğruluk Payı
12-Sep-2019 (6 months ago)

In every fact-check that we publish, the resources that we use, including the source of the fact-checked statement, are provided on that specific fact-check content's page. They are just below the end of our fact-check, and easily accessible. No membership required to see the sources.

We use open and public sources to fact-check the claims. Our primary targets for a source are official statistics. Secondary ones are trustworthy international statistical pages. And if we don't have any info from those primary and secondary sources, we search the trustworthy NGOs' reports as sources.

Our publication strategy can be found here: https://www.dogrulukpayi.com/~Degerlendirme-Kriterleri

Sarphan Uzunoğlu Assessor
13-Sep-2019 (6 months ago) Updated: 6 months ago

Open and public sources are used and referred in all analyses. Their understanding of sourcing is totally credible. Criterias listed in their website are also appropriate and fits to even academic standards.


done_all 3a marked as Fully compliant by Sarphan Uzunoğlu.

Section 4: Transparency of Funding & Organization

Criterion 4a
Funding Sources
Evidence required: Please link to the section where you publicly list your sources of funding (including, if they exist, any rules around which types of funding you do or don't accept), or a statement on ownership if you are the branch of an established media organization or research institution.

Doğruluk Payı
12-Sep-2019 (6 months ago)

Our most up-to-date sources of funding are listed in a Google Doc on this page of our website: http://www.dogrulukpayi.com/~Hakkimizda

Sarphan Uzunoğlu Assessor
13-Sep-2019 (6 months ago) Updated: 6 months ago

They have a certainly well functioning and totally transparent spreadsheet about their income and spendings available in https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1jIOG2dTAR8IjzNDoq1C9DK6mGN9gkVMvwVtXeamXuZ0/edit?usp=sharing (which is a link that is accessible through their about page). It is very rare to have such complete transparency.


done_all 4a marked as Fully compliant by Sarphan Uzunoğlu.

Criterion 4b
Staff
Evidence required: Please link to the section detailing all authors and key actors behind your fact-checking project with their biographies. You can also list the name and bios of the members of the editorial board, pool of experts, advisory board, etc. if your organization has those.

Doğruluk Payı
12-Sep-2019 (6 months ago)

All of our key actors, including our editors and their bios, are on this page of our website: http://www.dogrulukpayi.com/~Hakkimizda

Sarphan Uzunoğlu Assessor
13-Sep-2019 (6 months ago) Updated: 6 months ago

Names, profiles and contact details of all the editors and contributors are openly listed in their about page. 


done_all 4b marked as Fully compliant by Sarphan Uzunoğlu.

Criterion 4c
Contact
Evidence required: Please link to the section where readers can get in touch with the organization.

Doğruluk Payı
12-Sep-2019 (6 months ago)

Readers can simply email us from iletisim@dogrulukpayi.com and use our social media accounts. We also provide our all contact channels on this page which is on the homepage of our website: http://www.dogrulukpayi.com/~Hakkimizda

Sarphan Uzunoğlu Assessor
13-Sep-2019 (6 months ago) Updated: 6 months ago

Their corporate contact details include their institutional e-mail, phone number and Whatsapp line. These three lines seem to be more than enough for their audience and it is accessible for readers.


done_all 4c marked as Fully compliant by Sarphan Uzunoğlu.

Section 5: Transparency of Methodology

Criterion 5a
Detailed Methodology
Evidence required: Please link to a section or article detailing the steps you follow for your fact-checking work.

Doğruluk Payı
12-Sep-2019 (6 months ago)

Our methodology is publicly available at http://www.dogrulukpayi.com/~Degerlendirme-Kriterleri

Sarphan Uzunoğlu Assessor
13-Sep-2019 (6 months ago) Updated: 6 months ago

Their methodology (evaulation criterias) page is accessible from their homepage and it clearly identifies their methodology and criteria in an understandable way for their readers.


done_all 5a marked as Fully compliant by Sarphan Uzunoğlu.

Criterion 5b
Claim submissions
Evidence required: Please link to the page or process through which readers can submit claims to fact-check. If you do not allow this, please briefly explain why.

Doğruluk Payı
12-Sep-2019 (6 months ago)

Our website doesn't have a direct channel or a page that allows our users to submit a claim to fact-check to us. But we constantly encourage our followers from our official social media channels to reach us with the claims that they want us to fact-check. There are some visuals and social media links that these calls that we do can be seen easily;

Twitter: https://twitter.com/dogrulukpayicom/status/989094916667203586?s=20

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/dogrulukpayi/photos/a.1445752049006436/2197025270545773/?type=3&theater


Sarphan Uzunoğlu Assessor
13-Sep-2019 (6 months ago) Updated: 6 months ago

Their way of asking for readers' submissions is kind of conventional but they regularly demand their readers to submit their claims/suggestions. 


done_all 5b marked as Fully compliant by Sarphan Uzunoğlu.

Section 6: Open & Honest Corrections Policy

Criterion 6a
Corrections policy
Evidence required: Please link to the page with your policy to address corrections. If it is not public, please share your organization's handbook.

Doğruluk Payı
12-Sep-2019 (6 months ago)

Our correction policy is available at http://www.dogrulukpayi.com/~Degerlendirme-Kriterleri

Sarphan Uzunoğlu Assessor
13-Sep-2019 (6 months ago) Updated: 6 months ago

Their correction policy is transparently stated in their website and the way factchecking process works and the way possible mistakes are resolved are openly explained in evaluation criterias page.


done_all 6a marked as Fully compliant by Sarphan Uzunoğlu.

Criterion 6b
Examples of corrections
Evidence required: Please provide two examples of a correction made, or correction requests handled, in the past year.

Doğruluk Payı
12-Sep-2019 (6 months ago)

In the past year, there was no correction request that has reached us from a political actor. There were some corrections made a couple of years ago after some requests. The request can be found in attached.

An example: https://www.dogrulukpayi.com/iddia-kontrolu/orhan-saribal/tarimsal-ham-maddede-ithalat-ihracatin-6-katina-ulasti

Files Attached
description Tarımsal hammadde dı... (179 KB)
Sarphan Uzunoğlu Assessor
13-Sep-2019 (6 months ago) Updated: 6 months ago

While there are no many requests for correction sent to them but in the one example where they corrected the analysis, they openly indicate when the correction was made, what was the mistake and how/why they corrected it.


done_all 6b marked as Fully compliant by Sarphan Uzunoğlu.

Section 7: Eligibility to be a signatory

Criterion 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.

Criterion 1.2
The team, unit or organization is set up exclusively for the purpose of fact-checking.

Criterion 1.3
The applicant has published an average of at least one fact check a week over the course of the three months prior to the date of application.

Criterion 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.

Criterion 1.5
The applicant’s editorial output is not, in the view of the IFCN, controlled by the state, a political party or politician.

Criterion 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.

Section 8: A commitment to Non-partisanship and Fairness

Criterion 2.1
The applicant fact-checks using the same high standards of evidence and judgement for equivalent claims regardless of who made the claim.

Criterion 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.

Criterion 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.

Criterion 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.

Criterion 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.

Section 9: A commitment to Standards and Transparency of Sources

Criterion 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.

Criterion 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.

Criterion 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.

Criterion 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.

Section 10: A commitment to Transparency of Funding & Organization

Criterion 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).

Criterion 4.2
Applicants that are the fact-checking section or unit of a media house or other parent organization make a statement on ownership.

Criterion 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.

Criterion 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.

Criterion 4.5
The applicant provides easy means on its website and/or via social media for users to communicate with the editorial team.

Section 11: A commitment to Standards and Transparency of Methodology

Criterion 5.1
The applicant publishes on its website a statement about the methodology it uses to select, research, write and publish its fact checks.

Criterion 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.

Criterion 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.

Criterion 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.

Criterion 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.

Criterion 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.

Section 12: A commitment to an Open & Honest Corrections Policy

Criterion 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.

Criterion 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.

Criterion 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.

Criterion 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.

Criterion 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.