Organization: Fatabyyano project
Applicant: Moath Nabeel Althaher
Assessor: Sarphan Uzunoğlu
Edits made by the organization after this assessment
IFCN Staff wrote:
There's Notes on 3a,4a,4c,5a. So according to your notes we made these updates:
3a. We were asked to add hyperlinks of doubtful Claims to our Articles. we do our best to add the doubtful sources to all of our website articles as soon as possible ( we estimate to finish before the whole website within 1 week.)
Here you can see the list of articles that list of articles that we finished adding the doubtful source to it: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11QmxbnsifA1xvMO-3LNO8EslF1x3FZe954fVG-7ACU4/edit?usp=sharing
4a. According to the source of funding and the rules of which funding we do or don't accept.
The Reviewer ask us to provided more details about our income in Last Year. as It is an important criterion for a website working on fact-checking as financial transparency signifies our independency and loyaly to the cause of fact-checking. According to your ask we provide details about our Criteria and Last year income Online on our website.
4c. We found it an advantage in our website, but we made the Contact form more simple: https://fatabyyano.net/contact_us.
And in addition to this section, our facebook page is very highly interactive with audience as we receive many messages per day as we have 500,000 followers.
5a. We were asked to publicize more details about our fact-checking processes in our methodology section by adding more technical details. We did add more details to most of the steps we follow when we fact check any post. We also add details to Receiving team, Classification, Specialist, Editors, Mistake hunters, Proofreading and Publishing. The details we added is already used by our team except linking the sources of the doubtful content in our myth section in every article we publish on our website. This part was suggested by the reviewer which we eagerly agreed to start doing and finish it as soon as possible ( we wrote more details about this in 3a Section).
Conclusion and recommendations
Sarphan Uzunoğlu wrote:
They need to be more transparent about their financial models. Their existing statement is shady and not explanatory at all. Besides this, they seem to be operating fairly and they have a long history of fact-checking. Stories they provided seem to have a stable language and they have stayed loyal to their agenda. I think they should be asked to submit more details about their financial structure and policies regarding non-partisanship.