CORRECTIV.Faktencheck is a editorial unit within CORRECTIV, dealing exclusively with publishing fact-checks and reports about misinformation, disinformation and digital policy. Our factchecking newsroom is a distinct fact-checking project of a larger organization. This is also expressed in the layout of our website.

Correctiv.org/faktencheck

Find all about our companies legal status here: https://correctiv.org/kontakt/impressum/ 

We are registered as a non profit organization with the commercial register of the town of Essen in Germany. Our registration # is HRB 25135

Please find attached our registration.

Based on the IFCN Code of Principles, to verify eligibility to apply, applicants must publish on their website information that is easy for users to find, detailing their status as a legally registered organization or as a distinct team or unit within a legally registered organization. This information about the legal status of the organization or the team structure, if the applicant is a distinct team within another organization, should be clearly set out and quick to find, ideally one or two clicks from the pages where fact checks are run​​.

Regarding CORRECTIV.Faktencheck, they have stated that they are an editorial unit within CORRECTIV, focusing exclusively on publishing fact-checks and reports about misinformation, disinformation, and digital policy. This is articulated in the layout of their website, correctiv.org/faktencheck. Additionally, they have provided a link to a page (https://correctiv.org/kontakt/impressum/) which presumably contains information about their legal status as a non-profit organization registered in Essen, Germany, with registration number HRB 25135.

Given this information, it appears that CORRECTIV.Faktencheck complies with the IFCN criteria for eligibility to apply. Their website includes clear information about their legal status and organizational structure, which is a key requirement as per the IFCN guidelines.

Based on the IFCN Code of Principles, to verify eligibility to apply, applicants must publish on their website information that is easy for users to find, detailing their status as a legally registered organization or as a distinct team or unit within a legally registered organization. This information about the legal status of the organization or the team structure, if the applicant is a distinct team within another organization, should be clearly set out and quick to find, ideally one or two clicks from the pages where fact checks are run​​.

Regarding CORRECTIV.Faktencheck, they have stated that they are an editorial unit within CORRECTIV, focusing exclusively on publishing fact-checks and reports about misinformation, disinformation, and digital policy. This is articulated in the layout of their website, correctiv.org/faktencheck. Additionally, they have provided a link to a page (https://correctiv.org/kontakt/impressum/) which presumably contains information about their legal status as a non-profit organization registered in Essen, Germany, with registration number HRB 25135.

Given this information, it appears that CORRECTIV.Faktencheck complies with the IFCN criteria for eligibility to apply. Their website includes clear information about their legal status and organizational structure, which is a key requirement as per the IFCN guidelines.

The fact checking section was first set up in May 2017 ahead of the German general elections. Currently, there are fourteen members in the fact checking team. Nine of them are working as fact-checkers, one as a social media and community manager, one as a policy advisor and project manager for international networking and cooperations, three working within the community project Faktenforum: https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/ueber-uns/2019/05/20/unser-team/ 

We publish fact-checks (articles) and videos and investigations about the background of disinformation campaigns, networks of people spreading misinformation or about policy initiatives trying to combat disinformation.

In 2020, we published a detailed article arguing for the importance of fact-checking and accurate information for democracy, explaining also how we work: https://correctiv.org/top-stories/2020/07/09/warum-demokratie-faktenchecks-braucht/

Over the coming year we will continue our daily work, especially focusing on the war in Ukraine and the energy crisis. Additionally we plan on producing a podcast and work together with other fact-checking organizations on investigations concerning international trends of disinformation. Further, we plan to build up the community in our research and media literacy project Faktenforum. https://correctiv.org/projekte/faktenforum/  

The applicant states that the fact-checking section was established in May 2017, primarily ahead of the German general elections. They have a team of fourteen members with distinct roles, including fact-checkers, a social media and community manager, a policy advisor, and project managers. They focus on publishing fact-checks, videos, and investigations about the background of disinformation campaigns and policy initiatives to combat disinformation. They also plan to focus on specific topics like the war in Ukraine and the energy crisis, produce a podcast, and work on international collaborations​​.

According to the IFCN guidelines, the assessors need to determine if the applicant is set up "exclusively for the purpose of fact-checking." This involves reviewing the information provided about the organization's structure, motivation, and purpose, including the context in which it operates, the activities it carries out, and its goals for the coming year​​.

Based on the provided information, CORRECTIV.Faktencheck appears to comply with the criteria. They have a dedicated team for fact-checking, a clear focus on fact-checking activities, and specific plans for future operations that align with the purpose of fact-checking. Their activities go beyond general reporting and include specialized efforts in combating misinformation and disinformation, indicating a focus exclusive to fact-checking.

The applicant states that the fact-checking section was established in May 2017, primarily ahead of the German general elections. They have a team of fourteen members with distinct roles, including fact-checkers, a social media and community manager, a policy advisor, and project managers. They focus on publishing fact-checks, videos, and investigations about the background of disinformation campaigns and policy initiatives to combat disinformation. They also plan to focus on specific topics like the war in Ukraine and the energy crisis, produce a podcast, and work on international collaborations​​.

According to the IFCN guidelines, the assessors need to determine if the applicant is set up "exclusively for the purpose of fact-checking." This involves reviewing the information provided about the organization's structure, motivation, and purpose, including the context in which it operates, the activities it carries out, and its goals for the coming year​​.

Based on the provided information, CORRECTIV.Faktencheck appears to comply with the criteria. They have a dedicated team for fact-checking, a clear focus on fact-checking activities, and specific plans for future operations that align with the purpose of fact-checking. Their activities go beyond general reporting and include specialized efforts in combating misinformation and disinformation, indicating a focus exclusive to fact-checking.

We publish about forty fact checks a month and have done so for several years. In the past twelve months we published about 480 fact checks.

The applicant has met the criteria specified in the guidelines, as they have published an average of at least one fact check a week over the course of the twelve months prior to their application date. 

The applicant has met the criteria specified in the guidelines, as they have published an average of at least one fact check a week over the course of the twelve months prior to their application date. 

The applicant primarily concentrates on topics in their stories that affect the welfare or well-being of individuals, the general public, or society, like health, political and social claims, and misinformation in conflict and war.

The applicant primarily concentrates on topics in their stories that affect the welfare or well-being of individuals, the general public, or society, like health, political and social claims, and misinformation in conflict and war.

We have no financial relationship to political parties. CORRECTIV has received some funding from a government agency, the Bundeszentrale für Politische Bildung, this was for projects related to media literacy. See: https://correctiv.org/ueber-uns/finanzen/ 

CORRECTIV.Faktencheck won a grant by the Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF – Ministry of Education and Research) in the end of 2021 for the project "noFake", working on algorithms to help the fact-checking process and build up a community of citizen fact-checkers (Faktenforum). This is a joint project with the Technological University of Dortmund and the Ruhr-University Bochum. 

https://correctiv.org/in-eigener-sache/2022/03/08/mit-menschlicher-und-kuenstlicher-intelligenz-gegen-desinformation/ 

https://www.forschung-it-sicherheit-kommunikationssysteme.de/projekte/nofake 

https://correctiv.org/projekte/faktenforum/ 

Further, CORRECTIV received funding by the European Commission for the participation in the project to build the European Fact-Checking Standards Network (EFCSN) https://eufactcheckingproject.com/qa/ 

None of this funding has any bearing on the content we publish or the selection of misinformation claims that we fact-check.

CORRECTIV has stated that they have no financial relationship with political parties and that their funding from government agencies and the European Commission is for specific projects unrelated to their content or selection of misinformation claims to fact-check. This aligns with the requirement of non-influence by funders. Moreover, CORRECTIV's website contains detailed information about their funding, organizational structure, and key team members, adhering to the transparency criteria. There is no indication of any red flags, such as concealing information about people who exercise significant control over the organization or using pseudonyms for team members.

Therefore, based on the information provided by CORRECTIV and the requirements of Principle 3, it seems that CORRECTIV is in compliance with this principle of the IFCN Code of Principles​​.

CORRECTIV has stated that they have no financial relationship with political parties and that their funding from government agencies and the European Commission is for specific projects unrelated to their content or selection of misinformation claims to fact-check. This aligns with the requirement of non-influence by funders. Moreover, CORRECTIV's website contains detailed information about their funding, organizational structure, and key team members, adhering to the transparency criteria. There is no indication of any red flags, such as concealing information about people who exercise significant control over the organization or using pseudonyms for team members.

Therefore, based on the information provided by CORRECTIV and the requirements of Principle 3, it seems that CORRECTIV is in compliance with this principle of the IFCN Code of Principles​​.

We have a statute which our employees are bound to. This is to ensure our independence. https://correctiv.org/redaktionsstatut/                            

Applicant has stated that they have no financial relationship with political parties. Their funding from government agencies and the European Commission is earmarked for specific projects, which are unrelated to their content or the selection of misinformation claims they fact-check. In their editorial statute, applicant emphasizes comprehensive transparency in their finances and guarantees maximum independence in connection with their editorial statute. They outline various protocols for internal handling, source verification, whistleblower protection, and the research process, which further demonstrate their commitment to editorial independence and ethical journalism.

Furthermore, applicant has published detailed information about their funding, organizational structure, and key team members on their website. This level of transparency aligns with the requirements of the IFCN , ensuring that funders have no influence over the conclusions of the fact-checks and that the organization is 

Applicant has stated that they have no financial relationship with political parties. Their funding from government agencies and the European Commission is earmarked for specific projects, which are unrelated to their content or the selection of misinformation claims they fact-check. In their editorial statute, applicant emphasizes comprehensive transparency in their finances and guarantees maximum independence in connection with their editorial statute. They outline various protocols for internal handling, source verification, whistleblower protection, and the research process, which further demonstrate their commitment to editorial independence and ethical journalism.

Furthermore, applicant has published detailed information about their funding, organizational structure, and key team members on their website. This level of transparency aligns with the requirements of the IFCN , ensuring that funders have no influence over the conclusions of the fact-checks and that the organization is 

Our organization checks more claims that come from the right-wing political spectrum than from the left, because we see a lot more disinformation coming from this side. Our monitoring process is designed as open as possible - everybody can submit potential misinformation to us - to minimize bias. So we see mostly manipulated, fabricated, or out-of-context quotes from politicians who are more affiliated with left-wing parties, though we also examine statements from or about politicians who are conservative:

Concerning Ursula von der Leyen (CDU):

https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/2022/11/24/orgenesis-nein-heiko-von-der-leyen-arbeitet-nicht-bei-einem-unternehmen-das-pfizer-gehoert/

https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/2022/03/30/gefaelschter-artikel-mit-angeblicher-forderung-ursula-von-der-leyens-zu-lohnverzicht-kursiert-erneut/

Concerning Karl Lauterbach (SPD):

https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/2022/02/22/irrefuehrende-ueberschrift-karl-lauterbach-hat-nicht-gesagt-dass-intensivstationen-nie-ueberlastet-waren/

https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/2022/06/29/irrefuehrendes-standbild-nein-karl-lauterbach-zeigte-nicht-den-hitlergruss/

Concerning Robert Habeck and Annalena Baerbock (Bündnis 90/Die Grünen):

https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/2022/12/02/nein-robert-habeck-sagte-nicht-es-sei-ihm-egal-ob-die-menschen-ihm-vertrauen/ 

https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/2022/09/13/nein-annalena-baerbock-sagte-nicht-dass-weniger-steckdosen-das-stromsparen-foerdern-wuerden/

We also checked false claims that the grandfathers of several German politicians were allegedly in the SS, concerning Christian Lindner (FDP), Olaf Scholz (SPD) and Karl Lauterbach (SPD):

https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/2022/04/28/nein-oberst-gerhard-lindner-ist-nicht-der-grossvater-von-christian-lindner/

https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/2022/04/20/nein-dieser-ss-general-ist-nicht-der-grossvater-von-bundeskanzler-olaf-scholz/

https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/2022/04/29/es-stimmt-nicht-dass-dieser-ss-mann-der-grossvater-von-karl-lauterbach-war/

This fact-checking article shows that we publish checks that open up the possibility of criticism of politicians and government agencies, for example when the federal health ministry published a misleading graph about the ratio of vaccinated to unvaccinated people:

https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/2022/01/20/covid-19-bundesgesundheitsministerium-veroeffentlicht-irrefuehrende-twitter-grafik/

Fact-checking articles concerning the war in Ukraine are another good example to show that we check disinformation from different sides. There is a lot of disinformation coming from the pro-Russian side, but we also checked claims coming from the pro-Ukrainian side, like for example this:

https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/2022/02/28/nein-dieses-bild-zeigt-keinen-von-der-ukraine-abgeschossenen-russischen-jet-es-stammt-von-1993/

Nevertheless a big narrative spread from the pro-Russian side is that Ukraine is allegedly full of Nazis - concerning this, we fact-checked fabricated media but also did some fact-checking articles which concluded that it’s true that some nazi symbols were used around the Ukrainian military:

https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/2022/09/30/ja-auf-diesem-foto-traegt-ein-ukrainischer-soldat-einen-totenkopf-aufnaeher-mit-ss-motiven/

We also publish fact-checks about climate change denialism but also reviewed claims involving climate activists themselves, including this one confirming that some activists damaged trucks:

https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/2022/09/15/jugendliche-die-lastwagen-beschaedigten-gehoeren-zu-animal-rebellion-in-grossbritannien/ 

The applicant demonstrates efforts to comply with the IFCN's Principle for non-partisanship and fairness:

Coverage Across Political Spectrum: The applicant fact-checks claims from a range of political parties, indicating a broad coverage and avoiding a focus on one political side  including the CDU, SPD, Bündnis 90/Die Grünen, and FDP.

Inclusive Monitoring Process: Their process for selecting claims to fact-check is open to public submissions, aiding in minimizing bias.

Consistent Standards of Evidence: The applicant shows uniformity in their application of evidence standards, regardless of the political leanings of the claim or claimant.

Evidence-Based Conclusions: The provided fact checks suggest conclusions are based on evidence, adhering to the principle of letting evidence guide outcomes.

Diversity in Topics: Fact checks cover various topics, from politics and war misinformation to environmental issues, showcasing a wide thematic range.

The applicant demonstrates efforts to comply with the IFCN's Principle for non-partisanship and fairness:

Coverage Across Political Spectrum: The applicant fact-checks claims from a range of political parties, indicating a broad coverage and avoiding a focus on one political side  including the CDU, SPD, Bündnis 90/Die Grünen, and FDP.

Inclusive Monitoring Process: Their process for selecting claims to fact-check is open to public submissions, aiding in minimizing bias.

Consistent Standards of Evidence: The applicant shows uniformity in their application of evidence standards, regardless of the political leanings of the claim or claimant.

Evidence-Based Conclusions: The provided fact checks suggest conclusions are based on evidence, adhering to the principle of letting evidence guide outcomes.

Diversity in Topics: Fact checks cover various topics, from politics and war misinformation to environmental issues, showcasing a wide thematic range.

https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/ueber-uns/2018/10/04/haeufig-gestellte-fragen/ 

See the question: Wie wählt ihr die Themen aus, die ihr überprüft?

Detailed essay on our work, published in 2020: https://correctiv.org/top-stories/2020/07/09/warum-demokratie-faktenchecks-braucht/ 

Based on the provided information from the applicant's FAQ section, they do imply compliance with the criteria of explaining how they select claims to check, ensuring no undue concentration on any one side, and considering the reach and importance of claims. The FAQ addresses several key aspects:

Scope of Work: It outlines the applicant's role in countering disinformation and educating people on protecting themselves from false information.

Fact-Checking Process: Details about their fact-checking methodology, including the types of claims and sources they evaluate, are provided.

Political Neutrality: They discuss their approach to fact-checking across the political spectrum and their interaction with various political claims.

Transparency and Standards: The section includes information on their standards, error correction process, and stance on issues like censorship and political bias.

Collaborations and Networks: Information on their affiliations with networks like IFCN, EFCSN, and GADMO, which could influence their fact-checking approach and standards.

Public Engagement: Offers avenues for public input and error reporting, which can contribute to balanced fact-checking.

Based on the provided information from the applicant's FAQ section, they do imply compliance with the criteria of explaining how they select claims to check, ensuring no undue concentration on any one side, and considering the reach and importance of claims. The FAQ addresses several key aspects:

Scope of Work: It outlines the applicant's role in countering disinformation and educating people on protecting themselves from false information.

Fact-Checking Process: Details about their fact-checking methodology, including the types of claims and sources they evaluate, are provided.

Political Neutrality: They discuss their approach to fact-checking across the political spectrum and their interaction with various political claims.

Transparency and Standards: The section includes information on their standards, error correction process, and stance on issues like censorship and political bias.

Collaborations and Networks: Information on their affiliations with networks like IFCN, EFCSN, and GADMO, which could influence their fact-checking approach and standards.

Public Engagement: Offers avenues for public input and error reporting, which can contribute to balanced fact-checking.

The fact-checks provided by the applicant demonstrates compliance with the required standards of source transparency, interest declaration, and methodological transparency. It effectively uses credible and diverse sources, including government statistics and scientific studies, for example to address a claim about suicide rates during the Christmas period. The fact-check balances multiple perspectives and data from different regions, adhering to principles of non-partisanship and fairness.The applicant's fact-check about the manipulated video featuring Elijah Wood addresses false claims about Ukrainian President Zelensky. Their thorough investigation,  examining the video's origins, demonstrates adherence to high standards of evidence and methodological transparency.  A third example is a claim about a list of deceased refugees displayed in the EU Parliament. The fact-check corrects misinformation about the list, ensuring accuracy, and demonstrating a commitment to transparent and evidence-based reporting. This aligns with the principles of non-partisanship, transparency of sources, and accuracy.

The fact-checks provided by the applicant demonstrates compliance with the required standards of source transparency, interest declaration, and methodological transparency. It effectively uses credible and diverse sources, including government statistics and scientific studies, for example to address a claim about suicide rates during the Christmas period. The fact-check balances multiple perspectives and data from different regions, adhering to principles of non-partisanship and fairness.The applicant's fact-check about the manipulated video featuring Elijah Wood addresses false claims about Ukrainian President Zelensky. Their thorough investigation,  examining the video's origins, demonstrates adherence to high standards of evidence and methodological transparency.  A third example is a claim about a list of deceased refugees displayed in the EU Parliament. The fact-check corrects misinformation about the list, ensuring accuracy, and demonstrating a commitment to transparent and evidence-based reporting. This aligns with the principles of non-partisanship, transparency of sources, and accuracy.

Applicant complies.

Applicant complies.

https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/ueber-uns/2018/10/04/unsere-standards/

https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/ueber-uns/2018/10/04/correctiv-faktencheck/

https://correctiv.org/redaktionsstatut/   

The applicant, as an organization, maintains an independent stance and does not demonstrate any affiliation or support for political parties, politicians, or candidates. They also refrain from advocating for or against any specific policy issues, except in matters related to promoting transparency and accuracy in public discussions. This stance ensures that their work is not influenced by political biases or affiliations, focusing solely on providing factual and unbiased information

The applicant, as an organization, maintains an independent stance and does not demonstrate any affiliation or support for political parties, politicians, or candidates. They also refrain from advocating for or against any specific policy issues, except in matters related to promoting transparency and accuracy in public discussions. This stance ensures that their work is not influenced by political biases or affiliations, focusing solely on providing factual and unbiased information

Based on the fact-check examples provided, the applicant does identify the sources of significant evidence used in their fact checks. They provide relevant links to these sources where available online, enabling users to verify and replicate the work if desired. This approach is evident in the detailed citations and references included in their fact checks.

Based on the fact-check examples provided, the applicant does identify the sources of significant evidence used in their fact checks. They provide relevant links to these sources where available online, enabling users to verify and replicate the work if desired. This approach is evident in the detailed citations and references included in their fact checks.

The applicant seems to use the best available primary sources of evidence wherever possible. They have demonstrated a preference for primary sources in their fact-checking process. For instance, in the fact checks related to public figures or specific events, they directly reference official statements, reports, or data from authoritative sources, which are indicative of primary sources.

The applicant seems to use the best available primary sources of evidence wherever possible. They have demonstrated a preference for primary sources in their fact-checking process. For instance, in the fact checks related to public figures or specific events, they directly reference official statements, reports, or data from authoritative sources, which are indicative of primary sources.

The applicant appears to adhere to the principle of checking key elements of claims against more than one named source of evidence, except in cases where only one source is relevant. This is evidenced by their thorough investigation and citation of multiple sources in their fact-check analyses. They cross-reference claims with various credible sources, ensuring a comprehensive evaluation of the information before arriving at a conclusion. This approach aligns with the guideline that key elements of claims should be verified against multiple sources unless a single source is uniquely relevant to the topic at hand.

The applicant appears to adhere to the principle of checking key elements of claims against more than one named source of evidence, except in cases where only one source is relevant. This is evidenced by their thorough investigation and citation of multiple sources in their fact-check analyses. They cross-reference claims with various credible sources, ensuring a comprehensive evaluation of the information before arriving at a conclusion. This approach aligns with the guideline that key elements of claims should be verified against multiple sources unless a single source is uniquely relevant to the topic at hand.

The applicant does identify in its fact checks the relevant interests of the sources it uses where such interests might reasonably be seen as influencing the accuracy of the evidence provided.  By doing so, they enable readers to understand any potential biases or perspectives that might affect the credibility or interpretation of the evidence

The applicant does identify in its fact checks the relevant interests of the sources it uses where such interests might reasonably be seen as influencing the accuracy of the evidence provided.  By doing so, they enable readers to understand any potential biases or perspectives that might affect the credibility or interpretation of the evidence

We are a fact-checking section of a parent organization. This is made transparent here: https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/ ("Wie wir arbeiten")

The organizational structure of CORRECTIV as well as our finances are explained here: https://correctiv.org/ueber-uns/                            

 Correctiv.org appears to be an "independent organization." This classification can be inferred from their self-description as a "gemeinwohlorientiertes Medienhaus" (community-oriented media house) that operates as a non-profit organization. They emphasize their commitment to independent journalism, free from political and economic dependencies, and their funding model supports this claim. Correctiv.org is financed by private donors, foundations, and institutions, which aligns with the typical financial structure of independent organizations in the fact-checking field.

As an independent organization, Correctiv.org is expected to maintain 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 should also set out the legal form in which the organization is registered (e.g., as a non-profit). This aspect of financial transparency is crucial for verifying their status as per the IFCN guidelines for fact-checking organizations.

 Correctiv.org appears to be an "independent organization." This classification can be inferred from their self-description as a "gemeinwohlorientiertes Medienhaus" (community-oriented media house) that operates as a non-profit organization. They emphasize their commitment to independent journalism, free from political and economic dependencies, and their funding model supports this claim. Correctiv.org is financed by private donors, foundations, and institutions, which aligns with the typical financial structure of independent organizations in the fact-checking field.

As an independent organization, Correctiv.org is expected to maintain 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 should also set out the legal form in which the organization is registered (e.g., as a non-profit). This aspect of financial transparency is crucial for verifying their status as per the IFCN guidelines for fact-checking organizations.

CORRECTIV is a registered non profit organisation, aknowledged as such by the German financial authorities under § 52 AO in the town of Essen.

The finances of CORRECTIV are listed as summary here: https://correctiv.org/ueber-uns/finanzen/ 

We publish detailed review reports for each year, including finances of that year. See our latest: https://correctiv.org/ueber-uns/jahresbericht-2021/ (full report as PDF: https://correctiv.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/CORRECTIV_Jahresbericht_2021.pdf) 

CORRECTIV.Faktencheck also receives money from Facebook, which we have mentioned in our FAQs, for example: https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/ueber-uns/2018/10/04/haeufig-gestellte-fragen/

Facebook doesn't interfere in our work. We choose freely which topics we fact-check and publish. We explain our cooperation here: https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/ueber-uns/2018/12/17/ueber-die-kooperation-zwischen-correctiv-faktencheck-und-facebook

Correctiv as a whole receives donations and funding from several foundations. Important supporters are the Rudolf Augstein Foundation, Schöpflin Foundation, Adessium Foundation, Luminate and Open Society Foundation. We also received funding from the Google Digital News Initiative and Mercator Stiftung.

From this money only a small fraction is dedicated to CORRECTIV.Faktencheck - as from the Open Society Foundation or the Google News Initiative.

We also get small donations from individuals who want to support CORRECTIV. These are sums between 3 and 100 Euros / month. But we don't report on the sum that is dedicated to CORRECTIV as a whole organization and the sum, that is dedicated to the fact-checking.

Also see an example of our Transparency Report from 2019 here: https://correctiv.org/ueber-uns/transparenzbericht/ It also includes the memberships of the journalists working for the fact-checking team (e.g. in organizations, sports clubs...)

CORRECTIV.org fulfills the criteria for an independent organization as outlined in the IFCN Code of Principles. This is evidenced by their status as a registered nonprofit organization, acknowledged by German financial authorities under § 52 AO in Essen. They have published detailed review reports, including finances, on their website. Furthermore, CORRECTIV.Faktencheck's receipt of funds from Facebook and other foundations is openly disclosed and does not interfere with their editorial independence. They also receive small donations from individuals. Additionally, their transparency report includes details like memberships of their journalists in various organizations, supporting their claim of being an independent entity.

CORRECTIV.org fulfills the criteria for an independent organization as outlined in the IFCN Code of Principles. This is evidenced by their status as a registered nonprofit organization, acknowledged by German financial authorities under § 52 AO in Essen. They have published detailed review reports, including finances, on their website. Furthermore, CORRECTIV.Faktencheck's receipt of funds from Facebook and other foundations is openly disclosed and does not interfere with their editorial independence. They also receive small donations from individuals. Additionally, their transparency report includes details like memberships of their journalists in various organizations, supporting their claim of being an independent entity.

Information about our structure, the members of our board of trustees and our ethics council can be found here: https://correctiv.org/ueber-uns/   

Details: https://correctiv.org/ueber-uns/gremien/                          

Based on the provided text from the CORRECTIV website, it appears that they have detailed their organizational structure and the roles of key staff members involved in their operations. This information includes the positions and responsibilities of their editorial team, management, and other staff members. This level of detail seems to align with the IFCN's requirement for transparency regarding organizational structure and editorial control as outlined in the guidelines for assessors.

The guidelines specify that applicants should clearly outline their organizational structure and specify how and by whom editorial control is exercised​​. CORRECTIV's website description includes information about their team members and their roles, suggesting a clear and transparent presentation of their organizational hierarchy and control mechanisms.

Based on the provided text from the CORRECTIV website, it appears that they have detailed their organizational structure and the roles of key staff members involved in their operations. This information includes the positions and responsibilities of their editorial team, management, and other staff members. This level of detail seems to align with the IFCN's requirement for transparency regarding organizational structure and editorial control as outlined in the guidelines for assessors.

The guidelines specify that applicants should clearly outline their organizational structure and specify how and by whom editorial control is exercised​​. CORRECTIV's website description includes information about their team members and their roles, suggesting a clear and transparent presentation of their organizational hierarchy and control mechanisms.

We list the members of our team here:

https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/ueber-uns/2019/05/20/unser-team/

Each fact.check includes the name of its author, with a click on the name you get to their biography, editorial background and contact details. 

See for example:

https://correctiv.org/team/sophie-timmermann/

https://correctiv.org/team/sarah-thust/ 

https://correctiv.org/team/viktor-marinov/ 

It appears that they do comply with the criteria for providing professional biographies of those who play a significant part in their organization's editorial output. The excerpt includes detailed biographies of the members of their Faktencheck (fact-checking) team, outlining their educational background, professional experience, and specific roles within CORRECTIV.

This level of detail meets the IFCN's requirements as outlined in the guidelines for assessors, which stipulate that signatory organizations should detail the professional biography of those who play a significant part in their editorial output​​. By providing this information, CORRECTIV demonstrates transparency about the qualifications and backgrounds of its key editorial staff, which is essential for establishing trust and credibility in their fact-checking processes.

It appears that they do comply with the criteria for providing professional biographies of those who play a significant part in their organization's editorial output. The excerpt includes detailed biographies of the members of their Faktencheck (fact-checking) team, outlining their educational background, professional experience, and specific roles within CORRECTIV.

This level of detail meets the IFCN's requirements as outlined in the guidelines for assessors, which stipulate that signatory organizations should detail the professional biography of those who play a significant part in their editorial output​​. By providing this information, CORRECTIV demonstrates transparency about the qualifications and backgrounds of its key editorial staff, which is essential for establishing trust and credibility in their fact-checking processes.

Our main page includes all contact details at the bottom, as well as a link to register for our weekly email newsletter: https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/ 

We encourage our readers to write to us on WhatsApp or send us claims to check via our own platform CrowdNewsroom (see „Falschmeldung einreichen“ at the top of our website https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/ ).

We also published an article explaining our tipline on WhatsApp in detail: https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/ueber-uns/2020/05/12/correctiv-faktencheck-ist-auf-whatsapp-erreichbar/

Our Twitter account includes a contact number for WhatsApp and is open for DMs: https://twitter.com/correctiv_fakt - our Instagram account as well: https://www.instagram.com/correctiv_faktencheck/

We further encourage readers to send us feedback or needs for correction: https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/ueber-uns/2018/10/04/haeufig-gestellte-fragen/ 

CORRECTIV appears to comply with the criteria for encouraging users to communicate with their editorial team. This is evident from the multiple communication channels they offer:

Main Website: Their main page includes contact details and a link to register for their weekly email newsletter, promoting direct communication.

WhatsApp Communication: They encourage readers to write to them on WhatsApp and have a platform, CrowdNewsroom, for submitting claims to be checked. This platform is prominently featured on their website.

Detailed Article about WhatsApp Tipline: An article explaining their WhatsApp tipline in detail provides users with clear guidance on how to use this communication channel.

Social Media Engagement: Their Twitter and Instagram accounts include contact numbers for WhatsApp and are open for direct messages (DMs), offering additional avenues for user interaction.

Feedback and Corrections: A specific link for feedback and correction requests indicates a dedicated approach to user engagement and responsiveness to their needs.

CORRECTIV appears to comply with the criteria for encouraging users to communicate with their editorial team. This is evident from the multiple communication channels they offer:

Main Website: Their main page includes contact details and a link to register for their weekly email newsletter, promoting direct communication.

WhatsApp Communication: They encourage readers to write to them on WhatsApp and have a platform, CrowdNewsroom, for submitting claims to be checked. This platform is prominently featured on their website.

Detailed Article about WhatsApp Tipline: An article explaining their WhatsApp tipline in detail provides users with clear guidance on how to use this communication channel.

Social Media Engagement: Their Twitter and Instagram accounts include contact numbers for WhatsApp and are open for direct messages (DMs), offering additional avenues for user interaction.

Feedback and Corrections: A specific link for feedback and correction requests indicates a dedicated approach to user engagement and responsiveness to their needs.

Our working standards: https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/ueber-uns/2018/10/04/unsere-standards 

A short overview about the work of the fact-checking team within CORRECTIV: https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/ueber-uns/2018/10/04/correctiv-faktencheck

Our rating system with eleven categories: https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/ueber-uns/2018/10/04/unsere-bewertungsskala

Frequently Asked Questions about our work, including our claims selection process and correction policy: https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/ueber-uns/2018/10/04/haeufig-gestellte-fragen

Explanation about our policy regarding satire: https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/ueber-uns/2019/07/03/unsere-satire-richtlinie-was-wir-als-satire-bewerten-und-was-als-falschmeldung 

The provided links by CORRECTIV.Faktencheck demonstrate their adherence to several key criteria required for fact-checking organizations:

The website clearly addresses criteria for explaining their methodology in selecting, researching, writing, and publishing fact checks, as well as demonstrating their commitment to transparency, impartiality, and user engagement. These practices are in line with the standards expected of a credible fact-checking organization.

The provided links by CORRECTIV.Faktencheck demonstrate their adherence to several key criteria required for fact-checking organizations:

The website clearly addresses criteria for explaining their methodology in selecting, researching, writing, and publishing fact checks, as well as demonstrating their commitment to transparency, impartiality, and user engagement. These practices are in line with the standards expected of a credible fact-checking organization.

Based on the information provided from CORRECTIV.Faktencheck, it appears that they do select claims to check based primarily on the reach and importance of the claims. Their methodology, as outlined in their Frequently Asked Questions section (https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/ueber-uns/2018/10/04/haeufig-gestellte-fragen), indicates that they assess claims based on their relevance, reach, and the level of public interaction they receive.

This process involves evaluating the potential impact of a false claim (how important the false claim is), how widely the claim has been disseminated (its reach), and how the public is interacting with the claim. This approach aligns with the principle of selecting claims based on their significance and potential influence on public discourse.

Additionally, the transparency in their FAQs about how they select claims for fact-checking suggests that they do endeavor to explain the reasons behind their choice of claims, thus making their selection process understandable to their audience. This approach is consistent with best practices in fact-checking, focusing on claims that are of significant public interest and have a wide reach.

Based on the information provided from CORRECTIV.Faktencheck, it appears that they do select claims to check based primarily on the reach and importance of the claims. Their methodology, as outlined in their Frequently Asked Questions section (https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/ueber-uns/2018/10/04/haeufig-gestellte-fragen), indicates that they assess claims based on their relevance, reach, and the level of public interaction they receive.

This process involves evaluating the potential impact of a false claim (how important the false claim is), how widely the claim has been disseminated (its reach), and how the public is interacting with the claim. This approach aligns with the principle of selecting claims based on their significance and potential influence on public discourse.

Additionally, the transparency in their FAQs about how they select claims for fact-checking suggests that they do endeavor to explain the reasons behind their choice of claims, thus making their selection process understandable to their audience. This approach is consistent with best practices in fact-checking, focusing on claims that are of significant public interest and have a wide reach.

They thoroughly investigate claims, provide detailed context, and present a balanced view by considering all relevant aspects of a claim.

For instance, in their fact check about the contents of a Clearblue pregnancy test, they not only discuss the claim and the public reaction to it but also provide detailed information about the purpose of the tablet found in the test, quoting sources and explaining its function. This demonstrates their commitment to presenting both sides of a story - the claim itself and the evidence that refutes it.

This approach is in line with the principles of thorough and unbiased fact-checking, where presenting all sides of an issue is crucial for ensuring that the audience receives a complete and accurate picture. CORRECTIV.Faktencheck demonstrates their adherence to presenting relevant evidence for and against the claims they investigate.

They thoroughly investigate claims, provide detailed context, and present a balanced view by considering all relevant aspects of a claim.

For instance, in their fact check about the contents of a Clearblue pregnancy test, they not only discuss the claim and the public reaction to it but also provide detailed information about the purpose of the tablet found in the test, quoting sources and explaining its function. This demonstrates their commitment to presenting both sides of a story - the claim itself and the evidence that refutes it.

This approach is in line with the principles of thorough and unbiased fact-checking, where presenting all sides of an issue is crucial for ensuring that the audience receives a complete and accurate picture. CORRECTIV.Faktencheck demonstrates their adherence to presenting relevant evidence for and against the claims they investigate.

CORRECTIV.Faktencheck's methodology, as illustrated in their fact checks, shows that they apply the same rigorous standards to all claims they investigate. This is evident in the way they handle various fact checks, regardless of the source or nature of the claim. 

CORRECTIV.Faktencheck's methodology, as illustrated in their fact checks, shows that they apply the same rigorous standards to all claims they investigate. This is evident in the way they handle various fact checks, regardless of the source or nature of the claim. 

In fact-checking, reaching out to the source of a claim can provide valuable context, clarification, or additional evidence. However, as the guidelines indicate, this is not always possible or practical, especially with online claims or where safety or other legitimate concerns are present. The guidelines also acknowledge the possibility of non-response or the introduction of caveats by the claimants. Applicant does seems to contact sources when needed

In fact-checking, reaching out to the source of a claim can provide valuable context, clarification, or additional evidence. However, as the guidelines indicate, this is not always possible or practical, especially with online claims or where safety or other legitimate concerns are present. The guidelines also acknowledge the possibility of non-response or the introduction of caveats by the claimants. Applicant does seems to contact sources when needed

We have many ways readers an send us claims of potential misinformation to fact-check and point them out on our website: https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/ ("Falschmeldung einreichen") 

WhatsApp Chatbot – we have one person handling the submissions and sending out fact-checks to users. For the technical implementation of the chatbot we cooperate with the Spanish company Botalite (Maldita).

CrowdNewsroom is our own developed crowd sourcing tool. This is another way we encourage readers to submit questionable links or posts to us.

We have an automated email response if someone emails us directly to our common mailbox. This response includes the note to send only feedback via email and send potential misinformation content / links via Whatsapp or our Crowd Newsroom instead. (See attached) We do this because we can monitor claims much more efficiently and send them into a common database if they are submitted in structured way via Whatsapp or CrowdNewsroom than via email. But of course we read all emails nevertheless and also answer users who made submissions there. 

In every weekly email newsletter we send to our readers we mention the CrowdNewsroom and our WhatsApp number. (See attached)

We explain which content we can fact-check in our FAQ https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/ueber-uns/2018/10/04/haeufig-gestellte-fragen/ and satire policy https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/ueber-uns/2019/07/03/unsere-satire-richtlinie-was-wir-als-satire-bewerten-und-was-als-falschmeldung/ 

CORRECTIV.Faktencheck demonstrates a comprehensive approach to encouraging users to submit claims for fact-checking and provides clarity on what type of content can be fact-checked. 

CORRECTIV.Faktencheck demonstrates a comprehensive approach to encouraging users to submit claims for fact-checking and provides clarity on what type of content can be fact-checked. 

See the question: "Was ist, wenn ich einen Fehler bei euch entdeckt habe?" https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/ueber-uns/2018/10/04/haeufig-gestellte-fragen/    

and: https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/ueber-uns/2018/10/04/unsere-standards/                        

The statement from applicant indicates that they indeed have a clear and transparent corrections policy in place. If errors are discovered in their fact checks, they correct these errors and make the corrections visible both in the fact check itself and through their social media channels. This also applies to content additions or updates.

They invite readers to report any perceived inaccuracies in their fact checks via their designated email address (faktencheck@correctiv.org). Applicant commits to addressing all reasoned criticisms and, if necessary, making corrections up to the point of retracting a fact check if significant errors are identified. They also report on any major mistakes, explaining how they occurred.

Corrections and updates are compiled and made accessible in a specific section on their website. This approach reflects a commitment to accuracy and transparency, adhering to the principles of responsible fact-checking and journalism.

The statement from applicant indicates that they indeed have a clear and transparent corrections policy in place. If errors are discovered in their fact checks, they correct these errors and make the corrections visible both in the fact check itself and through their social media channels. This also applies to content additions or updates.

They invite readers to report any perceived inaccuracies in their fact checks via their designated email address (faktencheck@correctiv.org). Applicant commits to addressing all reasoned criticisms and, if necessary, making corrections up to the point of retracting a fact check if significant errors are identified. They also report on any major mistakes, explaining how they occurred.

Corrections and updates are compiled and made accessible in a specific section on their website. This approach reflects a commitment to accuracy and transparency, adhering to the principles of responsible fact-checking and journalism.

CORRECTIV's policy appears to cover essential elements like error correction, handling major mistakes, and transparency. However, it would be beneficial to clarify aspects such as the handling of different types of complaints, including those that may not warrant a response. This would further strengthen their adherence to the principles of a scrupulous and comprehensive corrections policy. They have outlined a clear process for handling errors in their fact-checking content. Key aspects of their policy include:

Correction of Errors: If errors are discovered post-publication, they are corrected, with the corrections prominently indicated in the fact check and on social media channels.

Handling Major Mistakes: For significant errors that could lead to the retraction of a fact check, CORRECTIV commits to reporting on the mistake and explaining its origin. This suggests a process for handling major mistakes, especially those requiring revised conclusions of a fact check.

Interaction with Complaints: The policy invites readers to contact them with concerns about fact checks, indicating a willingness to engage with complaints. However, it's not explicitly stated whether some complaints may justify no response, which is a standard element in such policies.

Documentation of Corrections and Updates: All corrections and updates are compiled and accessible, demonstrating transparency and adherence to their policy.

CORRECTIV's policy appears to cover essential elements like error correction, handling major mistakes, and transparency. However, it would be beneficial to clarify aspects such as the handling of different types of complaints, including those that may not warrant a response. This would further strengthen their adherence to the principles of a scrupulous and comprehensive corrections policy. They have outlined a clear process for handling errors in their fact-checking content. Key aspects of their policy include:

Correction of Errors: If errors are discovered post-publication, they are corrected, with the corrections prominently indicated in the fact check and on social media channels.

Handling Major Mistakes: For significant errors that could lead to the retraction of a fact check, CORRECTIV commits to reporting on the mistake and explaining its origin. This suggests a process for handling major mistakes, especially those requiring revised conclusions of a fact check.

Interaction with Complaints: The policy invites readers to contact them with concerns about fact checks, indicating a willingness to engage with complaints. However, it's not explicitly stated whether some complaints may justify no response, which is a standard element in such policies.

Documentation of Corrections and Updates: All corrections and updates are compiled and accessible, demonstrating transparency and adherence to their policy.

If we discover an error ourselves after we've published an article, or readers point it out to us, we indicate this either at the beginning or at the end of the text via an "Update" note. Examples: 

https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/hintergrund/2022/04/08/alina-lipp-wie-eine-28-jaehrige-zum-sprachrohr-russischer-propaganda-wurde/ 

https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/2022/11/24/ja-in-schwangerschaftstests-von-clearblue-ist-eine-tablette-es-ist-aber-keine-pille-danach/ 

https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/medizin-und-gesundheit/2021/12/21/covid-19-impfung-irrefuehrende-behauptungen-ueber-fehlgeburten-und-krankheiten-bei-kindern-in-der-stillzeit/ 

Overall, CORRECTIV's approach to handling corrections and their policy adherence demonstrate their commitment to accuracy, transparency, and responsiveness to reader input. This fulfills the requirement of providing a short statement about how the policy was adhered, including evidence of responses to correction requests.

Overall, CORRECTIV's approach to handling corrections and their policy adherence demonstrate their commitment to accuracy, transparency, and responsiveness to reader input. This fulfills the requirement of providing a short statement about how the policy was adhered, including evidence of responses to correction requests.

https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/ueber-uns/2018/10/04/unsere-standards/ 

CORRECTIV's response complies with the requirements for an existing signatory regarding the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) Code of Principles. Their provided information includes:

Commitment to the IFCN Principles: CORRECTIV.Faktencheck explicitly states its commitment to the principles of the international fact-checking network, aligning with IFCN's established standards.

Transparency and User Engagement: They have outlined their standards for fact-checking, which include a commitment to non-partisanship, fairness, transparency in source disclosure, organizational and supporter disclosure, transparency in methodology, and a policy for corrections. This transparency enables users to understand and evaluate their fact-checking process.

Mechanism for User Feedback and Complaints: They encourage users to send feedback or claims for fact-checking through various channels, including email and social media. This openness to user interaction demonstrates a commitment to engaging with their audience and addressing concerns.

Procedure for IFCN Code Violations: They provide information on how users can contact the IFCN directly if they believe CORRECTIV.Faktencheck is violating the IFCN principles. This is an important aspect of compliance, as it offers an external avenue for addressing potential breaches of the code.

Adherence to CORRECTIV's Editorial Statute: They are also bound by CORRECTIV's own editorial statute, which likely encompasses additional standards and practices for journalistic integrity.

Accessibility of Contact Information: Their main page includes comprehensive contact details and various ways for the public to engage with them, including direct email addresses for different types of inquiries and submissions.

CORRECTIV.Faktencheck's response and the information provided on their website demonstrate compliance with the IFCN's requirements for existing signatories, particularly in terms of transparency, user engagement, adherence to fact-checking principles, and mechanisms for addressing potential violations of the IFCN Code

CORRECTIV's response complies with the requirements for an existing signatory regarding the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) Code of Principles. Their provided information includes:

Commitment to the IFCN Principles: CORRECTIV.Faktencheck explicitly states its commitment to the principles of the international fact-checking network, aligning with IFCN's established standards.

Transparency and User Engagement: They have outlined their standards for fact-checking, which include a commitment to non-partisanship, fairness, transparency in source disclosure, organizational and supporter disclosure, transparency in methodology, and a policy for corrections. This transparency enables users to understand and evaluate their fact-checking process.

Mechanism for User Feedback and Complaints: They encourage users to send feedback or claims for fact-checking through various channels, including email and social media. This openness to user interaction demonstrates a commitment to engaging with their audience and addressing concerns.

Procedure for IFCN Code Violations: They provide information on how users can contact the IFCN directly if they believe CORRECTIV.Faktencheck is violating the IFCN principles. This is an important aspect of compliance, as it offers an external avenue for addressing potential breaches of the code.

Adherence to CORRECTIV's Editorial Statute: They are also bound by CORRECTIV's own editorial statute, which likely encompasses additional standards and practices for journalistic integrity.

Accessibility of Contact Information: Their main page includes comprehensive contact details and various ways for the public to engage with them, including direct email addresses for different types of inquiries and submissions.

CORRECTIV.Faktencheck's response and the information provided on their website demonstrate compliance with the IFCN's requirements for existing signatories, particularly in terms of transparency, user engagement, adherence to fact-checking principles, and mechanisms for addressing potential violations of the IFCN Code

https://correctiv.org/redaktionsstatut/ 

https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/ueber-uns/2018/10/04/haeufig-gestellte-fragen/ 

https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/ueber-uns/2018/10/04/unsere-standards/ 

If we discover an error ourselves after we've published an article, or readers point it out to us, we indicate this either at the beginning or at the end of the text via an "Update" note. Examples of corrections and updates:

https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/hintergrund/2022/04/08/alina-lipp-wie-eine-28-jaehrige-zum-sprachrohr-russischer-propaganda-wurde/

https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/2022/11/24/ja-in-schwangerschaftstests-von-clearblue-ist-eine-tablette-es-ist-aber-keine-pille-danach/

https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/medizin-und-gesundheit/2021/12/21/covid-19-impfung-irrefuehrende-behauptungen-ueber-fehlgeburten-und-krankheiten-bei-kindern-in-der-stillzeit/  

The applicant complies to this criteria. 

The applicant complies to this criteria.