We are a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania, as indicated on our About Us page: http://www.factcheck.org/about/our-mission/

The “About Us” section is thorough in outlining the status of the organization.

http://www.factcheck.org/archives/

The Archives section has its own link on the top-level navigation of the site. Not only is it prominently featured but it’s organized by both subject names and topics. So, not only can the user find past fact-checks on President Trump, but on health care as well. That’s a real bonus.

We explain our process here: http://www.factcheck.org/our-process/

In short, we have a process for selecting, reviewing and editing stories in a way that strives to maintain fairness and balance. When selecting material to write about, we seek to devote an equal amount of time reviewing claims by Republicans and Democrats. We systematically go through transcripts and videos looking for statements based on facts. Once we find a statement that we suspect may be inaccurate or misleading, we will engage – or attempt to engage – with the person or organization that is being fact-checked. The burden is on the person or organization making the claim to provide the evidence to support it. If the supporting material does not support the claim or if no evidence is provided, then we will conduct research of our own. After a story is written, it goes through several layers of editing and review. As many as four people who were not involved in writing or researching the story will edit and fact check the story for completeness, accuracy and fairness.

Here are links to 10 fact checks about Donald Trump and his opponent, Hillary Clinton, during the 2016 election:

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/11/the-final-push-trump/

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/11/the-final-push-clinton/

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/09/factchecking-the-first-debate/

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/10/factchecking-the-second-presidential-debate/

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/10/factchecking-the-final-presidential-debate-2/

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/clintons-greatest-hits/

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/trumps-greatest-hits/

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/05/ig-report-on-clintons-emails/

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/04/clinton-overstates-nuclear-achievement/

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/05/trumps-tall-tabloid-tale/

The editors appear to do a strong job of balancing their fact-checking analyses between the two candidates during the last campaign cycle. Overall, the writing approach is also strong and disdain of then-candidate Trump that you see from other news organizations appears to be absent. 

We have a policy that staffers and students must sign that states they cannot be involved in any political or advocacy organizations, and they cannot make any contributions to such organizations. I can upload a copy, if necessary. 

The policy on advocacy and not being involved in political organizations lacks transparency.

According to the editors: “We have a policy that staffers and students must sign that states they cannot be involved in any political or advocacy organizations, and they cannot make any contributions to such organizations.” 

While this policy is important to have, it’s purely an internal document right now. Given today’s media environment and the repeated claims of “fake news,” FactCheck.org would do well to be transparent about this policy and to publish its policy prominently on the site. A public explanation as to how this is enforced and how staff are prevented from taking part in advocacy would be helpful as well.

We provide links embedded in our stories to all sources that we use in writing our Wire stories. For Featured Articles and Ask FactCheck items, we list sources at the end of the stories. These links are used by our staff to fact check each and every fact that we use in our story before it is published -- ensuring that our readers replicate the fact check, too. 

The editors do a solid job of linking. Clearly there is an effort to link on background and supporting material, and editors appear to take great care in linking the appropriate key words rather than linking randomly. However, I would be curious to know what the click-through rates are. 

On parts of the site, including “Ask FactCheck,” the sources are listed at the bottom of the story. That approach seems to be more transparent and includes the context of the headline and is the approach I would recommend in addition to linking.

http://www.factcheck.org/our-funding/

The transparency on detailing the funding of FactCheck.org is exceptional. Two suggestions to increase transparency even more would be to include the individual donors beyond those who contribute more than $1,000 and also link to the bios or LinkedIn pages of top donors.

http://www.factcheck.org/our-staff/

Missing

http://www.factcheck.org/about/contact-us/

While there is a “Contact Us” section, the link is a sub-item of the “About Us” drop down menu option or at the bottom of each page. Relocating the link to right above “SciCheck” would make it more immediately reachable by the audience.

http://www.factcheck.org/our-process/

The editors also do an outstanding job of outlining the methodology behind their fact-checking. Outlining the editing process, as the editors do on the “Our Process” page should make all readers feel pretty good about the methodology here.

http://www.factcheck.org/ask-factcheck/ask-us-a-question/

When I first saw the “Ask FactCheck” section, I didn’t register with me that this was the interactive element with the audience. It’s not made clear that this question is from a reader nor that this is an ongoing interactive element. A few simple word changes – or identifying the reader asking the question – might help let first-time visitors know what’s going on here. I would also suggest finding a way to prominently feature the “Key Characteristics to Bogusness.” That’s fact-checking gold!

http://www.factcheck.org/our-process/

The Corrections policy is published on the “Our Process” page.

We gave the wrong date for when ACA employer requirements went into effect in this story: http://www.factcheck.org/2017/02/groundhog-day/

We gave inaccurate information on Blue Cross Blue Shield's net losses on ACA plans in North Carolina: http://www.factcheck.org/2017/03/gops-obamacare-obituary-premature/

Corrections themselves are usually at the bottom or the story. While corrected story carry a light gray “Corrected” annotation at the top, a more prominent tag would help the reader find out about the error more easily.