Fatabyyano Project

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.

https://fatabyyano.net/funding-transparency/

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).

https://fatabyyano.net/our-methodology/


Conclusion and recommendations
on 01-May-2019 (11 months ago)

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.

on 01-May-2019 (11 months ago)

Sarphan Uzunoğlu recommended Accept with edits


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.

Fatabyyano project
26-Dec-2018 (1 year ago) Updated: 11 months ago

Fatabyyano is an Independent legally-registered organization set up exclusively for the purpose of fact-checking. registered in 22 / Feb / 2016.

- As we declare in our Profile; Fatabyyano exclusively specialized for Fact-checking,   Resource: https://fatabyyano.net/fatabyyano-team/

- Also according to Transparency aspect in Wikipedia, Fatabyyano is defined as an Platform which exclusively specialized for Fact-checking and Debunking Fake-news, Rumors and Pseudoscience.  Resource https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%81%D8%AA%D8%A8%D9%8A%D9%86%D9%88%D8%A7.

Fatabyyano Located in; Jordan/Amman/ Shmisani / Near Housing Bank / 23 / Phone: 00962789765947




Files Attached
picture_as_pdf فتبينوا سجل تجاري ٤-... (552 KB) picture_as_pdf سجل تجاري فتبينوا.pd... (378 KB)
Sarphan Uzunoğlu Assessor
29-Apr-2019 (11 months ago)
Documents submitted by them regarding the registration of the organization are satisfactory and granted to them by the government. Therefore, it is possible to confirm that they are a legally recognized fact-checking focused organization. They are also set up and known to be working exclusively for the purpose of fact-checking.

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.

Fatabyyano project
26-Dec-2018 (1 year ago) Updated: 11 months ago

Fatabyyano platform started as Facebook page in June 2014, then we established Fatabyyano website ( Fatabyyano.net ) in October_2017, so you can found archives of fact checks published in the previous 19 months.

https://fatabyyano.net

https://fatabyyano.net/category/fake_news/

On our Facebook page you can found archive of 5 Years of working ( 50 months of fact-checking ! )

https://facebook.com/fatabyyano


Sarphan Uzunoğlu Assessor
29-Apr-2019 (11 months ago) Updated: 11 months ago
The applicant is regularly publishing reports in their web site and their Facebook account (which includes more samples of of their efforts). Looking at 19 months of activity on the web site and 50 months of activity on Facebook, it is possible to state that they publish regularly and their organizational focus is mainly on fact-checking.

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.

Fatabyyano project
26-Dec-2018 (1 year ago) Updated: 11 months ago

Fatabyyano as a non-partisan fact-checking platform has established a( standard methodology )for the sourcing of claims, writing and editing of fact checks.

As requested, here are 10 links to some of our fact checks:

https://fatabyyano.net/first_frozen_lady_defrozed

https://fatabyyano.net/senator/

https://fatabyyano.net/creature_produced_from_reproduction_between_pig_sheep/

https://fatabyyano.net/kiki_dance_death

https://fatabyyano.net/indonessia_plane_crash

https://fatabyyano.net/photos_process_chopping_khashoqgi_body/

https://fatabyyano.net/cancer_b17/

https://fatabyyano.net/1burma_air_ballon_explosion_death_person/

https://fatabyyano.net/activate_facebook/

https://fatabyyano.net/toilet/

Each Article starts with Claim ( FakeNews / Misinformation / Myth / Rumor ) then followed by the truth with details, then ended with the Sources of the article.

 

Sarphan Uzunoğlu Assessor
29-Apr-2019 (11 months ago) Updated: 11 months ago

Themes and subjects they focused on so far are not directly political. So, it is impossible to make a certain judgement about political partisanship, but in terms of their methodology and loyalty to factfulness and science, their reports seem to be relying on multiple types of sources and contents produced by scientific, governmental, nongovernmental and journalistic institutions. They focus on how the story was disseminated, why it is factful or wrong and they also reveal their methodology towards the factfulness of the issues they have focused on.


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.

Fatabyyano project
26-Dec-2018 (1 year ago) Updated: 11 months ago

To maintain a high level of clarity and objectivity for Fatabayyano, Members of our editorial staff are not allowed to donate to political campaigns or participate in political activities of any party

Team members can participate occasionally in media but they are requested to avoid taking sides or biasing towards or against any side in conversations

Fatabayyano has a clear code for transparency that is agreed upon by all members that they have to declare their political connections, if exist, and refrain from using Fatabayyano platform to advocate or promote for individual politicians or political parties.

ALSO

RED NOTE in Team bio page

https://fatabyyano.net/fatabyyano-team/

Sarphan Uzunoğlu Assessor
29-Apr-2019 (11 months ago) Updated: 11 months ago

I made a research on background of Fatabyyano and asked journalism professionals from MENA and confirmed that they are known to have a policy regarding non-partisanship. Their code of transparency and existing publications seem to be parallel with their statements. I also checked comments on their potentially controversial posts on social networks but I didn't come across any rational statement regarding their biases nor partisanship.


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.

Fatabyyano project
26-Dec-2018 (1 year ago) Updated: 11 months ago


Fatabayyano editors detect the source of fake news propagation and publish them pointing to the most spreading source of the rumor without any change in the contents and display it under the title “Wrong Information”. Under the title “Correction”, comes the edited correction of the fake news accompanied with photos and videos from the correction sources. Links to sources are listed in the tail of the article under a specific category titled as “Sources”. Each hyperlink directs the viewer to the full articles of trusted websites.

Fatabayyano avoids linking to gutter press as a source to any correction, and depends on highly reputed media institutions that are known to be highly professional and non-biased. For some cases, Fatabayyano may directly contact concerned persons to confirm or deny the diffused news.

Sarphan Uzunoğlu Assessor
29-Apr-2019 (11 months ago) Updated: 11 months ago

They are not linking to sources of doubtful contents as part of their policies yet they copy and publish the content they corrected below on their web sites and they list related. It seems like a doubtful methodological approach to me since hyperlinks are providing credibility for news organizations even if the content source is manipulative or biased.


done 3a marked as Partially 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.

Fatabyyano project
26-Dec-2018 (1 year ago) Updated: 11 months ago

Fatabyyano is an independent and registered institute. Fatabyyano's revenue comes from online advertising (social media, website and Fatabyyano show ). Also, from as well as Co-founders support.

The project costs mainly cover as follows:

  • Staff ( writers and Editors ) : 49%
  • Video Production 33%
  • graphic designers 6%
  • Technical support & Web developing 10%
  • Others : 2%
Sarphan Uzunoğlu Assessor
29-Apr-2019 (11 months ago) Updated: 11 months ago

They provided no concrete detail about their income. It is an important criterion for a website working on fact-checking and they just gave details about their costs instead of income. I definitely recommend that, their application shouldn't be accepted unless they provide data about their income last year. I believe that their financial transparency signifies their independency and loyaly to the cause of factchecking. 


cancel 4a marked as Non 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.

Fatabyyano project
26-Dec-2018 (1 year ago) Updated: 11 months ago
Sarphan Uzunoğlu Assessor
29-Apr-2019 (11 months ago) Updated: 11 months ago
I didn't see problem regarding this criterion. They are transparent in terms of their team and motives.

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.

Fatabyyano project
26-Dec-2018 (1 year ago) Updated: 11 months ago

https://fatabyyano.net/Contact_us

We also communicate with our followers through the message section, we are proud to say that we are highly active and ensure to respond to many of our followers as soon as possible.

Also Fatabyyano followers can contact us through :   Contact_us@fatabyyano.net 

Sarphan Uzunoğlu Assessor
29-Apr-2019 (11 months ago) Updated: 11 months ago

Their content module seems to be more developed than other institutions I made assesments for so far. Of course using instant messaging services or other direct or public channels may encourage more people to get in touch with them.


done 4c marked as Partially 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.

Fatabyyano project
26-Dec-2018 (1 year ago) Updated: 11 months ago
Sarphan Uzunoğlu Assessor
29-Apr-2019 (11 months ago) Updated: 11 months ago

As a web site focusing on issues such as scientific facts, I think they should publicize more details about their fact-checking processes in their methodology section. While it is describing the editorial flow of the organization, it misses many technical details we come across in the websites of well known fact-checking organizations. In this case, I think they might develop a more detailed methodology section.


done 5a marked as Partially 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.

Fatabyyano project
26-Dec-2018 (1 year ago) Updated: 11 months ago

Readers can suggest a claim to be fact checked through our website. ( https://fatabyyano.net/send-rumor/ ) 

Our receiving team monitor the messages we receive daily as we stated in our methodology. ( https://fatabyyano.net/our-methodology/ )



Sarphan Uzunoğlu Assessor
29-Apr-2019 (11 months ago) Updated: 11 months ago

There is a successful module enabling readers to send their claims. It seems to be very functional and easy to access from the homepage.


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.

Fatabyyano project
26-Dec-2018 (1 year ago) Updated: 11 months ago

Corrections Policy

Our policy is to promptly correct errors of fact and to clarify any potentially confusing or ambiguous statements in our articles. Readers can submit potential corrections through the Contact form; those submissions will be routed to an editor for evaluation and action.

Whenever we change the rating of a fact check (for any reason), correct or modify a substantive supporting fact (even if it does not affect the item’s overall rating), or add substantial new information to an existing article, those changes are noted and explained in an Update box at the foot of the article.

Corrections of typographical errors, misspellings, or other minor revisions not deemed substantive by our editors are not noted.

Sarphan Uzunoğlu Assessor
29-Apr-2019 (11 months ago) Updated: 11 months ago

They have a section for corrections and updates in the bottom of the articles and this system seems to be fair enough regarding this criterion. 


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.

Fatabyyano project
26-Dec-2018 (1 year ago) Updated: 11 months ago

Here in this post we mistake the date saying the event was in 2012 instead of 2011 and you can review the update in the article.

We stated this on our website: herehttps://fatabyyano.net/wind-dubai/

Another example of a correction dates back to 3 November 2016 when we corrected a post about a mosque that was closed, nevertheless people can still hear the AZAN (call for praying for Muslims) from it.

Our mistake was putting a wrong name for the mosque as we relied on a news agency which stated the name wrong. One of our followers corrected the name for us through our website, we checked his correction and made this edit when we republished the post when it went back viral in 23 February 2019.

You can check the post where the name of the mosque was stated wrong from the link of our website: here

In this post we updated the name after checking ,you can review it on our website.


Sarphan Uzunoğlu Assessor
29-Apr-2019 (11 months ago) Updated: 11 months ago

The example and explanation they provided fits to the criterion. It is verifiable via clicking the hyperlinks.


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.