teyit.org

Organization: Teyit
Applicant: Mehmet Atakan Foça
Assessor: Sarphan Uzunoğlu
Conclusion and recommendations
on 06-Sep-2019 (7 months ago)

Sarphan Uzunoğlu wrote:

They seem to be a totally compliant candidate. They are very transparent about their financial model and workflow. They are reachable and they produce on a very regular basis compared to other fact-checking outlets I've assessed so far.

on 06-Sep-2019 (7 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.

Teyit
29-Aug-2019 (7 months ago) Updated: 7 months ago

Teyit is a not-for-profit social enterprise that focuses on social impact. Because of institutional infrastructure for social enterprises are underway in Turkey Teyit operates under multiple institutional structures.

Research on media and social media is conducted by Teyit Media Research Association on behalf of teyit.org. Technology and training development studies are conducted by Dubium Bilişim Danışmanlık ve Ticaret Ltd. Şti. The only activity of the company is teyit.org.

The company, Dubium, have promised to not distribute its revenue to shareholders or head of the board.

The trademark of teyit.org is registered by Dubium. 

Files Attached
picture_as_pdf Onaylı Tüzük.pdf (3 MB) picture_as_pdf dubiumticsilgazsyf2.... (124 KB) picture_as_pdf dubiumticsilgazsyf1.... (123 KB) picture_as_pdf tasdik şerhi.pdf (484 KB) picture_as_pdf Patent Marka Tescil... (766 KB) picture_as_pdf Vergi Levhası 2018.p... (57 KB) picture_as_pdf karar-defteri-kar-da... (220 KB)
Sarphan Uzunoğlu Assessor
04-Sep-2019 (7 months ago) Updated: 7 months ago

All the documents provided by Teyit.org  shows that they are a legally authorized institution and they are established 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.

Teyit
29-Aug-2019 (7 months ago)
Sarphan Uzunoğlu Assessor
04-Sep-2019 (7 months ago) Updated: 7 months ago

Their website publishes fact-checks and reports more than once a day. This is a totally acceptable regularity.


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.

Teyit
29-Aug-2019 (7 months ago) Updated: 7 months ago

Teyit checks the viral claims on the internet which may possibly affect democratic processes or all the candidates during election periods:

https://teyit.org/2019-yerel-secimlerinde-internette-yayilan-yanlis-bilgiler/

Teyit collects the engagement data of misinformation and reports that.

https://teyit.org/yerel-secimler-boyunca-yayilan-yanlis-bilgileri-analiz-ettigimiz-sahte-haber-karnesi-cikti/

Claims which point as a target a person, organization or a community to propagate polarization or discriminate them, are another focus of Teyit:

https://teyit.org/turkiyede-yasayan-suriyelilerle-ilgili-internette-yayilan-22-yanlis-bilgi/

https://teyit.org/izmirde-uniformali-kisinin-kasitli-olarak-yangin-cikardigi-iddiasi/

https://teyit.org/nihat-hatipoglunun-programinda-ameliyatla-ilgili-soru-soran-tip-fakultesi-ogrencisi-iddiasi/

Teyit provides thinking methods about some debates with case studies:

https://teyit.org/vaka-calismasi-kirazlida-kac-agac-kesilmis-olabilir/

Teyit publishes analyses about the widespread misinformation on health issues which may affect public hygiene:

https://teyit.org/fotograftaki-sebzelerin-gdolu-oldugu-iddiasi/

https://teyit.org/fotografin-kansere-neden-olan-siyahlasmis-soganlari-gosterdigi-

Teyit's team shares editorial debates: 

https://teyit.org/etiket/serbest-kursu/

Teyit also defines the types of misinformation in Turkish:

https://teyit.org/sozluk-yanlis-bilginin-en-yaygin-7-turu/

And share the news and latest researches on fact-checking and misinformation:

https://teyit.org/konu/teyitpedia/

Teyit publishes analyses upon misleading or fabricated stories without choosing a political side of any political debate. The methodology of choosing claims and researching a suspicious content is very strict and Teyit performs in the frame of methodology for every claim.

To be immune from selection bias, the decision to research a story does not belong to one person on the team. Every day, the claims which are transmitted to Teyit are argued by editors after prioritization criteria had been implemented. Virality is the common prioritization criteria. Importance steps in if the fabricated stories are harmful to divided groups, minorities or innocent people. Urgency is the key prioritization criteria during crisis situations.

https://teyit.org/metodoloji-ve-ilkeler/

https://teyit.org/methodology

Sarphan Uzunoğlu Assessor
04-Sep-2019 (7 months ago) Updated: 7 months ago

Teyit is focusing on disinformation practices in Turkey's new media sphere. Their main focus is global social networks and they do not limit their categorical focus to science or politics. They have several topics fact-checked in their website. In addition, they perform in an objective way and the get statements from all sides of the story and use available fact-checking technologies in all cases.


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.

Teyit
29-Aug-2019 (7 months ago)

Teyit respects political diversity and the different worldviews of the team members. But Teyit does not allow any point of view to be effective on the verification processes. The worldviews of the subcontractors are not effective in any analysis or any work done by Teyit.

It has been indicated the agreements of full-time and part-time employees. Also, the playbook of Teyit which has been prepared to show how Teyit does fact-check for newcomers contains the same warning.

https://teyit.org/metodoloji-ve-ilkeler/

https://teyit.org/methodology

Sarphan Uzunoğlu Assessor
04-Sep-2019 (7 months ago) Updated: 7 months ago

Despite the political environment in Turkey; all the members/editors of Teyit team seem to keep very neutral in their daily conversations in social networks and their analyses. Even when I checked the critical dates such as the day ol local elections in March and re-election day in June; none of the seems to have broken their principles. 


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.

Teyit
29-Aug-2019 (7 months ago) Updated: 7 months ago

Every analysis contains external links to references and sources that help Teyit's fact-checkers to check the claim. Users can easily follow the links to see how Teyit's writers have verified the suspicious news.

In the main body of the every analysis, Teyit's fact-checkers put the archive links to the original sources against the possibility of editing the sources. The timestamps of the tools like teyit.link, archive.is or archive.org help Teyit to show users, what was the page looks like when Teyit's fact-checkers read them. On the right column, every piece of evidence is written with details. (Title, date, link, if the evidence based on a phone call, the date and time of the call)

Sarphan Uzunoğlu Assessor
04-Sep-2019 (7 months ago) Updated: 7 months ago

Besides enabling their archive.is alike service teyit.link; teyit has too many strict policies regarding dtection and presentation of the statements of the sources. Metadata regarding evidences are given in the right column and that is very reliable way of providing credibility for the source. It also creates credibility for the analysis itself.


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.

Teyit
29-Aug-2019 (7 months ago) Updated: 7 months ago
Sarphan Uzunoğlu Assessor
04-Sep-2019 (7 months ago) Updated: 7 months ago

Year by year; funds and grants given to Teyit.org are archived in their nedir and about page. They seem to be accounting for most of their total value and recipient of funds and organizations that provide are clearly stated and referred by links.


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.

Teyit
29-Aug-2019 (7 months ago) Updated: 7 months ago
Sarphan Uzunoğlu Assessor
04-Sep-2019 (7 months ago) Updated: 7 months ago

Members of the team and their roles are publicly listed in Turkish and English versions of their website. Biographies are indicated and social network profiles' links exist for each.


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.

Teyit
29-Aug-2019 (7 months ago) Updated: 7 months ago
Sarphan Uzunoğlu Assessor
04-Sep-2019 (7 months ago) Updated: 7 months ago

Their contact page including information regarding whatsapp report line seems good and interactive enough.


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.

Sarphan Uzunoğlu Assessor
04-Sep-2019 (7 months ago) Updated: 7 months ago

Their methodology is publicly available in Turkish and English and they have proper explanations about the way fact-checking works within their organizations. Also their internal notes are shared in their web site which makes their outlet more transparent about their activities.


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.

Teyit
29-Aug-2019 (7 months ago) Updated: 7 months ago

Internet users can send the suspicious and doubtful content via Website: https://teyit.org/ihbar-2/ Facebook: facebook.com/teyitorg Twitter: twitter.com/teyitorg and WhatsApp hotline: +90 (546) 474 54 40 Teyit gets 30 suspicious contents from those channels in daily average.

Sarphan Uzunoğlu Assessor
04-Sep-2019 (7 months ago) Updated: 7 months ago

It is very clear from their website and social accounts that people can send their claims through their internal interfaces and Whatsapp line. They are allowed to both send supporting documents for their claims in addition to their text reports if needed.

There is no specific statement in their "report" page about what readers can legitimately expect will be fact-checked and what isn’t fact-checkable. They need to add such information to be totally compliant.


done 5b marked as Partially 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.

Teyit
29-Aug-2019 (7 months ago) Updated: 7 months ago
Sarphan Uzunoğlu Assessor
04-Sep-2019 (7 months ago) Updated: 7 months ago

They have a certain methodology they apply in all their works. Their correction policy is publicly explained in their methodology and principles page. The work flow is totally explained and understandable.


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.

Sarphan Uzunoğlu Assessor
04-Sep-2019 (7 months ago) Updated: 6 months ago

They have provided us with two of their self corrections in both social network and their own website. 


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.