Ellinika Hoaxes (Greek Hoaxes)

Organization: Ellinika Hoaxes (Greek Hoaxes)
Applicant: Thanos Sitistas (Epachtitis)
Assessor: Sophia Ignatidou
Conclusion and recommendations
on 10-Jan-2019 (1 year ago)

Sophia Ignatidou wrote:

Ellinika Hoaxes is a Greek independent fact-checking website operating as an NGO. It fact-checks a broad range of stories, from current affairs to conspiracy theories, health myths and pseudoscience, circulating in Greece's online sphere and abroad. It occasionally showcases a sensationalist approach to what has been termed 'fake news', as a poll asking its readers to vote for the 'best hoaxes of 2018' exemplifies, but it seems to be trying to raise awareness and engage its readers.

It would be useful to provide statistics for the reader-submitted fact-checks as it would clarify how the Greek public approach the issue of disinformation and what kind of 'fake news' reach them. For example Ellinika Hoaxes fact-checks quite a few stories published on Greek conspiracy theory and far-right websites but it would be helpful to see if these were sourced from the readers themselves. Additionally, the site's decision to include tips for things to watch out for so readers can develop a critical eye able to spot fake news themselves is commendable.

Ellinika Hoaxes was found to be mostly compliant with the IFCN code of principles and did act on initial recommendations. The only issues I would like to raise was the lack of enough submissions of political articles to showcase the absence of partisanship and the lack of a clarification of what gets fact-checked and what not, as well as statistics in terms of the reader-submitted stories.

Therefore I recommend for Ellinika Hoaxes to be accepted as a signatory. 

on 10-Jan-2019 (1 year ago)

Sophia Ignatidou 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.

Ellinika Hoaxes (Greek Hoaxes)
18-Dec-2018 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago

Ellinikahoaxes.gr, also known as Ellinika Hoaxes (Greek Hoaxes) is a non profit NGO by the name "ΑΣΤΙΚΗ ΜΗ ΚΕΡΔΟΣΚΟΠΙΚΗ ΕΤΑΙΡΙΑ ΚΕΝΤΡΟ ΚΑΤΑΠΟΛΕΜΗΣΗΣ ΤΗΣ ΠΑΡΑΠΛΗΡΟΦΟΡΗΣΗΣ», set up exclusively for the purpose of fact-checking. Located at Chrysospathi 2, Thessaloniki, Greece, with VAT number: 996880116. We inform our readers in full detail about us here: https://www.ellinikahoaxes.gr/about-us/

Our official registration: 

Files Attached
picture_as_pdf enarxi_doy_hoaxes.pd... (38 KB) picture_as_pdf ΚΕΝΤΡΟ ΚΑΤΑΠΟΛΕΜΗΣΗΣ... (276 KB)
Sophia Ignatidou Assessor
04-Jan-2019 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago

Ellinika Hoaxes is a Greek fact-checking website, registered as an NGO with the stated goal of tackling disinformation and is based in the country's second biggest city, Thessaloniki.

It was founded by four individuals and its legal registration details the scope of its planned activities which will involve fact-checking, development of online tools to spot fake news, organising conferences, seminars, and generally raising awareness about disinformation. The company has provided proof it was established legally in November 2018 but the team states on its website it has been operational since 2013.

done_all 1a marked as Fully compliant by Sophia Ignatidou.

Criterion 1b
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.

Ellinika Hoaxes (Greek Hoaxes)
18-Dec-2018 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago

Our fact checks are not registered specificaly by date but according to their category. In the past 3 months, we have publiced 87 fact-checks, out of a total of 2722 articles (fact-checks) that we have publliced since the beggining of our initiative in 2013.

You can view all our articles sorted by date on the following link https://www.ellinikahoaxes.gr/homepage-blog/.

Our main categories include:

Fake News


History and Myths


Conspiracy Theories

Health Claims



Usefull tips and advises


To view all the categories, you can use the dropdown on the nagivation menu.

Please note that some of our articles may be eligible for more than one category.

Sophia Ignatidou Assessor
04-Jan-2019 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago

The website posts at least one fact-check per week, usually even more, although the policy regarding what is fact-checkable and what is not is unclear. 

done_all 1b marked as Fully compliant by Sophia Ignatidou.

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.

Ellinika Hoaxes (Greek Hoaxes)
18-Dec-2018 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago

2a criterion updated with articles about "History and myths" and "Conspiracy theories"

Our fact-checking activity includes issues such as politics, pseudoscience, racist and xenophobic fake news, fake claims that proliferate through social media, historical hoaxes etc. With this wide range of topics, we often use the voluntary help of scientists and specialists. A full list of them can be found here: https://www.ellinikahoaxes.gr/scientific-advisers. We support full nonpartisanship and therefore, our staff is not allowed to be members of any political party.

Examples of fact-checks


The case of "professor-vice rector" Giorgos Paschalidis:


Our research proved this man had no scientific creddentials and we were able to block his participation at the Εuropean Ηealth Forum Gastein 2017:


Our research was used by the Greek Police and this man was presecuted for fraud and harm to at least one patient. This is the official statement by the Police: http://www.astynomia.gr/index.php?option=ozo_content&lang=&perform=view&id=83579&Itemid=2194&fbclid=IwAR0fUWffldLwWT_6ZLtMLSGER6O0XCEERU4VlCQISVMgTQ0btxL5y_uluJg

The case of "doctor" Konstantinos Mouroutis

Our extensive research proved this man did not hold 3 PhDs in medicine nor did he have any medical expertise whatsoever, as he claimed:


Our revelations brought forward people who blamed him for harming cancer patients by averting them from receiving their doctors medicine (chemotherapy):



This man is under investigation by the Greek Authorities as we speak.

Political Hoaxes

As it is mentioned above, we support full nonpartisanship. Our articles have often revealed pro-goverment fake news (one example about the recent devestating wildfires is here: https://www.ellinikahoaxes.gr/2018/08/26/archikes-esties-fotias/) and anti-goverment fake news (one example is here: https://www.ellinikahoaxes.gr/2017/09/18/adonis-signomi-se-politi/).

Further articles on our non-partisanship:

ANEL: https://www.ellinikahoaxes.gr/2018/10/31/albania-air-policing-facts

Junta: https://www.ellinikahoaxes.gr/2018/07/31/junda-forest-fires/

Golden Dawn: https://www.ellinikahoaxes.gr/2018/09/25/erotisi-palia-eidisi

Racist fake news

We often debunk fake news about immigrants and refugees. The following are two examples:



Social Media

We often debunk fake news and scams that proliferate through social media.



History and myths

Here we debunk pseudohistory and various myths that are popular in Greece. Here are two examples.



Conspiracy theories

Several conspiracy theories are quite popular in Greece. Here are two examples.



Sophia Ignatidou Assessor
04-Jan-2019 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago

The submitted samples include articles about scams by impostors pretending to be established academics or doctors, rumors going viral, social media posts or misstatements by politicians. The political content of the website, where it exists, does not display signs of partisanship. 

done_all 2a marked as Fully compliant by Sophia Ignatidou.

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.

Ellinika Hoaxes (Greek Hoaxes)
18-Dec-2018 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago

2b criterion updated with more recent copy of internal statute (please note article 5)

Our staff are forbidden from being members to any political party, as it is specifically stated here: https://www.ellinikahoaxes.gr/financing-indepedence/. We do not accept donations or any kind of reimbursment by any bussines, individual, media etc, that may be affiliated to any political party.

Files Attached
picture_as_pdf ΚΑΤΑΣΤΑΤΙΚΟ_HOAXES (... (6 MB)
Sophia Ignatidou Assessor
04-Jan-2019 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago

Ellinika Hoaxe's charter (which was provided) clearly states staff members are not allowed to be or become members of any political party and highlights their independence from political, religious and governmental influence. 

done_all 2b marked as Fully compliant by Sophia Ignatidou.

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.

Ellinika Hoaxes (Greek Hoaxes)
18-Dec-2018 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago

Can you please elaborate on "More consistency in terms of presentation would be useful"?



Most of the claims we receive for review come from our readers and are reviewed by the first available member of our editorial team. Then, it is evaluated by the rest of the team and it is decided whether the topic for research matches the role of Greek Hoaxes. Then, a member undertakes the preliminary investigation and writes a draft of the facts, which will then be checked for any errors and omissions before we publish our article.

Our research starts (whenever possible) with an attempt to contact the source of the claim. We also try to communicate with individuals and organizations or authorities who may be familiar with or have relevant expertise on this issue.

The data we use is always multifaceted, impartial, reputable and relevant with the subject we are investigating. We always try to double check them from multiple sources which include but are not limited to, published scientific research, reputable news outlets, interviews, statistical data etc. We always provide links to our sources so that our readers can verify our fact-check.

The final article will go through the hands of at least one of the senior editors. If at least one author considers that any piece does not fall within our standards, it is subjected to further review before publice.

Also, we always archive the claims that we fact-check ( web.archive.org , or archive.is etc), so as to make sure that they will not be changed, or otherwise corrupted and most importantly, for our readers to be able to check the original claim themselves).

Our methodology is explained in detail in the following link https://www.ellinikahoaxes.gr/transparency-and-methodology . Also, we often use the expertise of a pool of scientists and specialists, and a list that mentions them can be found here: https://www.ellinikahoaxes.gr/scientific-advisers .

Sophia Ignatidou Assessor
04-Jan-2019 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago

Articles do contain links to statements or other articles proving the fact-checked news are false, as well as email correspondence in jpeg format so readers can have access to parts of the fact-checking process. 

Archiving the fact-checked articles is also commendable. 

More consistency in terms of presentation would be useful. 

done_all 3a marked as Fully compliant by Sophia Ignatidou.

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.

Ellinika Hoaxes (Greek Hoaxes)
18-Dec-2018 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago
As an non profit organization, we do not receive any kind of funding. The ads that appear in our website are used by Athens Voice (athensvoice.gr), who in return provide us with technical support and hosting. For details you can refer to https://www.ellinikahoaxes.gr/financing-indepedence/.

Update: We added a sentence on the article above ("Δεν δεχόμαστε σχετικά διαφημιστικά έσοδα.") to clarify that we do not accept any of the ad income. We also added "Τη διαχείριση της διαφήμισης την έχουμε παραχωρήσει στην Athens Voice η οποία μας διαθέτει server και τεχνικό για την σελίδα μας. Δεν δεχόμαστε σχετικά διαφημιστικά έσοδα, και όλα τα έσοδα των διαφημίσεων, καταλήγουν στην Athens Voice, η οποία ως αντάλλαγμα, καλύπτει τα έξοδα του server και του τεχνικού συμβούλου. Η Athens Voice όχι μόνο δεν έχει καμία σχέση με την επιλογή της θεματολογίας μας, αλλά πολλές φορές στο παρελθόν έχουμε διαψεύσει άρθρα της. Σχετικά παραδείγματα εδώ, εδώ, εδώ και εδώ." , where we provide further explaination that funds from ads go to Athens Voice in exchange for hosting and technical support, and examples of articles that prove that Athens Voice does not control the choice or content of our fact-checked articles.

Sophia Ignatidou Assessor
04-Jan-2019 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago

Ellinika Hoaxes states that apart from the limited funds its founders submitted to establish the NGO, the site does not receive any external funding and any contributors are writing voluntarily. The site clarifies though that the limited online ads they have, are managed by another Greek media outlet, Athens Voice, which provides Ellinika Hoaxes with a server and technical support in exchange. As stated, Athens Voice is not involved in their editorial decisions in any way. 

done_all 4a marked as Fully compliant by Sophia Ignatidou.

Criterion 4b
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.

Ellinika Hoaxes (Greek Hoaxes)
18-Dec-2018 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago

This is a link to all the authors of ellinikahoaxes.gr and a short bio for each one: https://www.ellinikahoaxes.gr/who-are-we/

This is a link (as mentioned above) with a part of the scientists and specialists who voluntarily help us with our work: https://www.ellinikahoaxes.gr/scientific-advisers 

Sophia Ignatidou Assessor
04-Jan-2019 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago

The names and biographies of the key actors are listed, as well as the external scientific advisers with hyperlinks to the professional profiles of any contributing academics.

Recommendation: it would be useful to add individuals' emails or Twitter handles so communication with them is easier.                                                                                                  

done_all 4b marked as Fully compliant by Sophia Ignatidou.

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

Ellinika Hoaxes (Greek Hoaxes)
18-Dec-2018 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago
Our readers can contact us via contact form, email, or our page in Facebook, as it is stated here: https://www.ellinikahoaxes.gr/contact-us/.
Sophia Ignatidou Assessor
04-Jan-2019 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago

It's really easy to get in touch with the team of Ellinika Hoaxes as the contact page is one of the main categories at the top menu.

done_all 4c marked as Fully compliant by Sophia Ignatidou.

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.

Ellinika Hoaxes (Greek Hoaxes)
18-Dec-2018 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago
Here we state our methodology, we present examples of articles regarding the tools we use, and provide a brief explaination of the characterization and categorization of our debunks https://www.ellinikahoaxes.gr/transparency-and-methodology . Our methodology has been updated with specific examples.

Regarding the uses a series of tags to label news stories, which are colored red at the beginning of each article, we also use a series of stamps on primary picture of every article, so that our readers know right away what kind of debunk we are presenting. Examples of stamps attached.

As of today, we also implemented the use of more visible tags within each article. See example: https://www.ellinikahoaxes.gr/2019/01/09/avgi-frontpage-hoax/

Files Attached
22551404_68453430840... (439 KB) 22551457_68453430506... (433 KB) 22554546_68453429506... (431 KB) 22554652_68453433173... (493 KB)
Sophia Ignatidou Assessor
04-Jan-2019 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago

Ellinika Hoaxes' methodology states their limited financial and staff resources constrain the amount of articles they can fact-check. Nevertheless, it seems readers' requests is the predominant determinant of what will get covered. Although the willingness to listen to their readers is commendable, it does result in an output that is somewhat thematically haphazard. It would be useful to have public statistics in terms what percentage of the fact-checked articles get requested by the readers and what gets sourced by the Ellinika Hoaxes team, to get a clearer idea of the site's direction. Nevertheless, current affairs related content gets fact-checked too. 

The website's methodology page states stories that have received lots of online engagement or false health stories are prioritised in order to protect the public from misdiagnosing their condition and potentially seeking the wrong remedies.

Ellinika Hoaxes uses a series of tags to label news stories it fact-checks: 'Clickbait', 'Like Farming', 'Pseudoscience', 'True', 'False', 'False allegation', 'Fear-mongering' and 'Mixing facts and fiction', but even though those are coloured, they're difficult to spot. The site added stamps with titles 'Scam', 'Fake news', etc that are more visible and provide an immediate determination of the nature of the article that got fact-checked. 

done_all 5a marked as Fully compliant by Sophia Ignatidou.

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.

Ellinika Hoaxes (Greek Hoaxes)
18-Dec-2018 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago
In this link, we explain how our readers can submit claims to fact-check: https://www.ellinikahoaxes.gr/correction-policy-and-participation/

Update: We configured our header menu, placing a "send us your suggestions" button, right next to the "contact" button, thus making it more prominent. We also updated our contact form to make it more user friendly, removing the mandatory input of a name, replacing the old CAPTCHA validation with the new invisible reCAPTCHA, and adding the option of sending up to 5MB of files relative to the suggestion.

Sophia Ignatidou Assessor
04-Jan-2019 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago

The website has a dedicated section titled 'send us your suggestions' where readers are urged to send stories to get fact-checked or request corrections to already published material on the Ellinika Hoaxes website. Readers can submit claims for fact-checking through the main email of Ellinika Hoaxes, the website's Facebook group, or a contact form.

done 5b marked as Partially compliant by Sophia Ignatidou.

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.

Ellinika Hoaxes (Greek Hoaxes)
18-Dec-2018 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago
In the same link as above, we state our correction policy and how readers can reach us if the want to submit a correction https://www.ellinikahoaxes.gr/correction-policy-and-participation/.

Update: The article has been adjusted according to the recommendations.

Sophia Ignatidou Assessor
04-Jan-2019 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago

Following recommendations, Ellinika Hoaxes added an additional section ('Send us your suggestions') at the main menu, urging readers to get in touch with articles that need fact-checking. Guidelines in terms of what readers can provide along with their submissions and a timeframe for corrections are also provided.

done_all 6a marked as Fully compliant by Sophia Ignatidou.

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

Ellinika Hoaxes (Greek Hoaxes)
18-Dec-2018 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago
Sophia Ignatidou Assessor
04-Jan-2019 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago

Two articles were submitted that were partly corrected or updated, with the correction added at the end of the original article and marked by an additional sub-heading.

It would be advisable to devise a way to make the corrections more prominent and maybe add an additional time stamp so readers are aware of how long it took for a correction to be made.

The applicant does not have a dedicated page for published corrections.

done_all 6b marked as Fully compliant by Sophia Ignatidou.

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.