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/

It is also explained on our donation page (click on "Additional Information FactCheck Donations Fund"): https://giving.aws.cloud.upenn.edu/fund?fastStart=simpleForm&program=ANS&fund=602014

We also explain that we are a project of UPenn's APPC on our copyright page:  https://www.factcheck.org/copyright-policy/

Very clear - might consider adding that the University of Pennsylvania is a 501(c)3 organization to the mission page to identify what type of nonprofit it is since 501(c)3 since 501(c)4s can engage in more advocacy work whereas the 501(c)3 designations is for education, etc. It's probably obvious since this is housed in a university, but it distinction might be important to some readers.

1. 2003. The co-founders are Dr. Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center and former dean of the Annenberg School for Communications who researched and wrote extensively on effective fact-checking methods, and Brooks Jackson, a former investigative reporter for the Wall Street Journal and AP who did fact-checking at CNN during the 1992 election, using methods pioneered by Dr. Jamieson. Our goal then -- as it is now -- is to reduce the level of confusion and deception in politics, using the best techniques of journalism and scholarship.

2. Nine full-time staffers and one part-time staffer. We also have four undergraduate student fellows who work part-time. Staff: https://www.factcheck.org/our-staff/ Fellows: https://www.factcheck.org/undergraduate-fellows/

The FactCheck.org director makes all final editorial decisions -- often in consultation with the managing editor, who is in charge when director is not available. All staffers research and write stories, and fact check stories written by others. Some staffers have line editing responsibilities -- typically the director, managing editor and assignment editor/project manager of our third-party fact-checking project with Facebook. We require that each story be edited by at least two people, so there are times when other staffers get involved in editing on a second read. 

Our undergraduate fellows help us review transcripts and videos, fact-check articles prior to publication and respond to thousands of readers’ emails. They also occasional write such stories as profiles of third-party PACs that raise and spend money seeking to influence elections.

3. Research and publish fact checks, and train University of Pennsylvania students in fact checking.

4. Our mission is to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics largely through fact-checking major U.S. political figures on public policy issues of importance and debunking viral deceptions circulating on social media. In addition to fact-check articles, we also answer reader questions through features called Ask FactCheck and Ask SciCheck, publish Q&As (and other explainer stories) intended to provide factual information on complex public policy issues, and write profiles of major third-party organizations that seek to spend millions of dollars on advertising to influence federal elections. In the coming year, our focus will be on the final months of the 2020 campaign, the pandemic and the public policy initiatives that will come from the next Congress and the winner of the 2020 presidential election.  

All information stated transparently here and on the website. Overall, factcheck.org operates with a clear purpose of sharing factual information with the public and dispelling misinformation. The assessor's knowledge of this organizations track-record is that it is very reputable and trusted. The United States is currently in nearing their Nov. 3 election date for U.S. President and reports are showing direct attempts by both domestic and foreign actors to interfere with the election, largely through misinformation campaigns on social media.The country is currently very ideologically divided between a growingly anti-government Republican party and a divided Democrat party, part of which wants the party to become more progressive and part of which wants it to remain more moderate to appeal to swing voters. Currently, incumbent Republic Donald Trump will face Democrat Joe Biden in the general election and polls show favor for Biden, but by a decreasing margin. The country is also leading the world in COVID-19 deaths, which is greatly shaping public perspectives on public health action and the ability for some members of the public to vote in-person. Factcheck.org's service to the public within this context fulfills their mission of reducing deception and confusion in politics, which ties not only to the current election but also to the political response to the pandemic. Given how established and well-resourced this organization is, it is well set-up for its purpose.

We published nearly 600 fact-check articles and videos in the last 12 months, or about 11 fact checks a week. Attached is a spreadsheet with evidence that we have published at least one a week. 

An archive of all of our stories can be found here: https://www.factcheck.org/archives/

Factcheck.org is posting well-over one fact check/week. 

An archive of our stories can be found here: https://www.factcheck.org/archives/

Factcheck.org's fact checks relate specifically to claims from the political world and therefore have a direct impact on the welfare of individuals, society and the public. Without the ability to verify information about policy issues and politicians, the public would be much worse-off in terms of their ability to make informed decisions. Of the 10 fact checks submitted by the organization along with a random cross-check of other fact checks in their archive, the organization appears to be operating with 100% of their claims serving as a benefit to public welfare given that they all deal directly with The President, Congress and public policy and/or public health.

We receive no government funding, foreign or domestic, and we have a prohibition on accepting funds from political parties and politicians.

We publish quarterly financial reports on our website that explain in detail the types of funding that we do and do not accept: https://www.factcheck.org/our-funding/

We do not seek and have never accepted, directly or indirectly, any funds from unions, partisan organizations or advocacy groups. We do not accept funds from corporations with the exception of Facebook, as part of Facebook’s initiative to debunk viral deceptions circulating on the social media site, and Google, which provided funding for our COVID-19 coverage. We note on our funding page that Facebook and Google have no control over our editorial decisions. We disclose the identity of any individual or organization that makes a donation of $1,000 or more. We also disclose the total amount, average amount and number of individual donations in our quarterly reports. In 2015, Inside Philanthropy praised our disclosure policy for “exemplifying nonprofit transparency.” 

Very transparent with funding sources

We receive no government funding, foreign or domestic, and we have a prohibition on accepting funds from political parties and politicians.

We publish quarterly financial reports on our website that explain in detail the types of funding that we do and do not accept: https://www.factcheck.org/our-funding/

It does not appear that factcheck.org receives any funding of this nature. They offer a very transparent picture of their finances for the public.

We fact check the statements of major U.S. politicians, answer reader questions, debunk viral deceptions, and write Q&As on important public policy issues. 

The 10 examples below illustrate fact-checks involving political claims made in TV ads, TV interviews, debates, press conferences, campaign rallies, as well as viral misinformation circulating on social media. I also included an example of explainer pieces that we do to provide information on important public policy issues of the day -- in this case what the research says about face masks.  

Here are the 10 links that show the scope of our work over the previous 12 months:

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/08/trumps-steel-industry-claims/

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/05/the-falsehoods-of-the-plandemic-video/

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/07/in-viral-video-doctor-falsely-touts-hydroxychloroquine-as-covid-19-cure/

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/05/factchecking-bidens-breakfast-club-interview/

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/07/factchecking-trumps-fox-news-sunday-interview/

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/04/covid-19-face-mask-advice-explained/

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/01/factchecking-the-january-democratic-debate/

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/04/factchecking-ad-about-donating-our-masks-and-supplies-to-china/

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/02/family-separation-spin-in-nevada/

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/03/trump-hypes-potential-covid-19-drugs-but-evidence-so-far-is-slim/

When selecting material to write about, we seek to devote an equal amount of time reviewing claims by Republicans and Democrats. We do that by reviewing statements they make about public policy in the same venues - such as debates, news shows, press conferences, major speeches and TV ads. The idea is to treat the candidates and parties in a fair and even-handed way when searching for material to write. 

We review transcripts and videos of President Trump, former Vice President and Democratic president nominee Joe Biden and other major U.S. officials, including congressional leaders of both parties and cabinet officials. We use CQ Transcriptions, Rev.com, CNN transcripts, CSPAN, the White House website and SnapStream to identify possible claims in video and transcripts. We also review TV ads from Advertising Analytics, a paid service that provides us TV ads for all the House, Senate and presidential races.

Once we find a statement on a public policy issue 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, so we can have the benefit of their sources and research. (We ask the person making the claim to provide evidence to support it.)

As for our research, we rely on primary sources of information, such as the Bureau of Labor Statistics (employment stats), Bureau of Economic Analysis (economic data), Energy Information Administration (energy data) and Census Bureau (trade and other data). All of our stories include links to the source material used in our fact checks to allow our readers to duplicate our work. When quoting experts, we provide not only their current titles and employer but also any relevant background information, such as their previous work in government or campaigns -- if applicable. 

Prior to publications, our stories undergo a rigorous review. They are line edited, copy edited and fact checked for completeness, accuracy and fairness. In addition to benefiting our readers, the links we provide in our stories are used by our staff to fact check our stories prior to publication. As many as four people who had nothing to do with writing or researching the story may review our stories prior to publication. 

In short, we follow a process to treat all parties and individuals fairly, follow the facts and let the chips fall where they may. 

In evaluating the provided fact checks, the assessor found that factcheck.org conducts their work with high standards of evidence and a consistent process across the board. Each fact check is carefully done so that the writers break apart the claim in way that allows the reader to see which parts of it are true and which aren't, regardless of who is saying them. While the organization does appear to more frequently fact check claims by individuals and organizations on the political right, this does not come close to "unduly concentrat[ing] on one side." Given that one of factcheck.org's purposes is checking claims by the President specifically, it makes sense that there would currently be more checks of claims from the political right. Additionally, the current president is very active social media user and is likewise running a reelection campaign while governing, so his volume of claims to check is particularly high. And even within the fact checks on the current president, factcheck.org in no ways uses their service as a platform to only highlight lies or deceptions - we'll often see language like "To some extent he’s right..." as in the check on covid-19 deaths and numbers (https://www.factcheck.org/2020/06/covid-19-cases-and-deaths-by-the-numbers/), indicating a fair approach to evaluating his claims.

Additionally, when comparing fact checks done of claims from the political right and left, factcheck.org demonstrates their nonpartisanship by focusing in detail on evidence for both sides and letting that evidence lead to the conclusions in the evaluation of claims. We see that both in claims from Biden and from Trump, for example, the two current presidential nominees.

One particularly robust aspect of factcheck.org's analyses are their attention to context. For example, in their analysis of Biden's claim about Trump not acting quick enough on a China travel ban, factcheck.org doesn't just analyze a single claim, but unpack multiple related claims on the topic and offers substantial evidence to support their evaluation: https://www.factcheck.org/2020/08/bidens-greatest-hits/. We see the same level of detail and nonpartisanship with claims by Trump: https://www.factcheck.org/2019/08/trumps-steel-industry-claims/ 

We have a page on the website that describes "Our Process," which states that "we seek to devote an equal amount of time reviewing claims by Republicans and Democrats" and explain how we accomplish that. It also includes videos explaining our process. Here is the page: https://www.factcheck.org/our-process/

The process described is stated transparently for the public. Given that factcheck.org is explicitly interested in evaluating political claims, particularly during elections, their work naturally generates a data set that allows them to evaluate each side since the US is a two-party political system. Factcheck.org also explicitly states their focus on the office of the President, which is important given their attention to the claims of Trump.

An archive of all of our stories can be found here: https://www.factcheck.org/archives/https://www.factcheck.org/archives/

The fact checks offer very transparent information about sources cited. In cases where individuals are quoted, their relevant positions, credentials and/or affiliations are mentioned. In the sample of 21 fact-check, there were no cases that where the assessor saw a case "where the reader might reasonably conclude those [the source's] interests could influence the accuracy of the evidence provided," as in a reference to a politcally-motivated think tank. It seems that factcheck.org steers clear of using sources that would create question in the mind of the reader on the motivations of the source.

In both fact checks and the language in the mission of the organization, factcheck.org does not exhibit a preference for any political party or policy. Their main objective of transparency and accuracy of information is evident in their fact checks and no language that the assessor could find indicated any political leaning. In a random review of social media posts from the organization, there appears to be no political preference or advocacy language.

We have a nonpartisanship policy that staffers, freelancers and undergraduate fellows must sign that clearly states that they cannot be involved in any political or advocacy organizations, and they cannot make any contributions to such organizations, among other things. We recently updated "Our Staff" page to include information about our nonpartisanship policy: https://www.factcheck.org/our-staff/#nonpartisanship-policy-for-staff

Factcheck.org states a clear policy on non-partisanship for staff that ensures a more fair and rigorous fact checking process. In a randomized review of social media posts from staffers, none appeared to be posted any political stance. The majority of the content shared on social media were links to fact checks or about fact checking.

Factcheck.org is very thorough in their identification of sources and offers a clear path for readers to verify information themselves through relevant links. In cases where the organization has interviewed a source, those details of the interview are shared with the reader.

The organization uses reputable primary sources for its evidence wherever possible, going directly to scientific studies and published data sets. In some cases, as with the evaluation of the Plandemic video, the organization uses scholars and experts as sources because the claims being checked aren't based in a data set. https://www.factcheck.org/2020/05/the-falsehoods-of-the-plandemic-video/ 

The organization offers multiple different sources of evidence in each claim they fact check. For example, in the evaluation of Trump's claims on the steel industry, there are 45 sources used, a good indicator of the robustness of this organization's work. https://www.factcheck.org/2019/08/trumps-steel-industry-claims/ 

My only recommendation of sources used is that some of the fact checks include a bibliography and some don't. Including one seems like a useful tool for readers and doing so consistently would also be a benefit.

Sources used in the factchecks are always given relevant credentials, affiliations and expertise. In none of the examples were there sources that might appear to have an interest that would influence the accuracy of evidence.

We are a fact-checking project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania. We inform readers of our status on the "Our Mission" page: https://www.factcheck.org/about/our-mission/

The relationship with the Annenberg Public Policy Center is clearly stated on the website.

Our funding page provides quarterly and annual information on our funding sources: https://www.factcheck.org/our-funding/

Our mission page provides information on the legal status of our organization: https://www.factcheck.org/about/our-mission/

It is also available on the university's donation page for FactCheck.org: https://giving.aws.cloud.upenn.edu/fund?fastStart=simpleForm&program=ANS&fund=602014

The donation page states that FactCheck.org is a project of University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg Public Policy Center. "The University of Pennsylvania is a 501(c)3 organization and your contribution is deductible from U.S. federal income taxes to the full extent allowed by law," the page says. 

(We link to that donation page several times on our website.)

Would it be possible to have the text included under the "additional information" link on the donation page to just be on main page? This doesn't seem imperative, but it would mean more people would see those details rather than the few visitors who decide to click through a link.

Our organizational structure can be found on "Our Staff" page, which includes titles indicating those in charge of editorial decisions: https://www.factcheck.org/our-staff/

The FactCheck.org director is in charge of all editorial content and reports to the Annenberg Public Policy Center director. 

The organizational structure is very transparent and the roles and editorial process are clearly explained in relation to the staff.

Our organizational structure can be found on "Our Staff" page, which includes names, titles and professional bio information: https://www.factcheck.org/our-staff/

The biographies of the staff are clear and offer detailed information about who they are, their role and/or expertise.

We provide several links on our website where we encourage users to contact us. 

At the top of our homepage, we have a drop down menu called "ASK A QUESTION," which provides links for readers who want to submit questions for Ask SciCheck and Ask FactCheck.

The links:

https://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/

https://www.factcheck.org/askscicheck/

At the top of our homepage, the "About Us" drop down menu includes a link on how to contact us: https://www.factcheck.org/about/contact-us/

The "Contact Us" link also appears at the bottom of every page, linking to a page where we provide our address, phone number and the editor's email address.  

Factcheck.org offers a very easy-to-access format for reaching out to the editorial team, asking questions, and contacting them.

Our Process: https://www.factcheck.org/our-process/

Factcheck.org offers a clear explanation of their methodology for fact checking on their cite.

The claims checked appear to meet their standard of having political import given that they all deal with political and social issues that impact the public. Of the 21 claims analyzed, all of them are on topics of political significance given that they relate to the upcoming election, current legislation and/or the current pandemic.

Each of the fact checks analyzed offers substantial evidence that allows the reader to see if any portion of a claim is true and why. When someone states a claim that references a specific study or statement by another person or party, fact check locates and shares the original source for the reader. They are careful in using primary sources and do not rely simply on someone's claim that something is the case. In equal parts, they show the reader evidence that confirms, denies, and sometimes complicates the reality of a stated claim.

Regardless of who made a claim, factcheck.org uses a rigorous process when finding and offering evidence that supports the truth of a claim or shows how it's wrong. In all the fact checks analyzed, the organization relies heavily on primary sources from organizations like the Census Bureau, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, academic studies and more. 

The organization appears to seek out interviews with those who made made claims in most cases and will provide links to any secondary sources used as well that might be reporting on information referenced in the claim. Factcheck.org explains cases where they reached out to those who made claims and they explain whether or not the source provided answers. We see an example of them doing with this in the fact check on the Plandemic video with Judy Mikovitz, the main source used in the video: https://www.factcheck.org/2020/05/the-falsehoods-of-the-plandemic-video/ 

As mentioned above, we have a drop down menu at the top of our home page called "ASK A QUESTION," which provides links for readers who want to submit questions for Ask SciCheck and Ask FactCheck.

The links:

https://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/

https://www.factcheck.org/askscicheck/

We privately answer questions directly to readers via email, but we also publish Ask FactCheck and Ask SciCheck when we receive similar questions from multiple readers. 

Our stories generated by readers can be found here:

https://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/

And here:

https://www.factcheck.org/askscicheck/

We started Ask FactCheck in 2007, and most of the questions were about viral emails. Most questions now are about viral social media content, and those questions are answered by a separate team of reporters who debunk viral misinformation. Those stories can be found here:

https://www.factcheck.org/fake-news/

Readers and users are invited to use multiple formats to send claims for checking - some topics allow readers to see what questions/claims come up regularly in the "ask factcheck" and "ask scicheck" sections.

Our corrections policy can be found in two places on our home page. It can be found in the "Our Process" page. To make it easy for readers to request corrections, we also provide an option in the "About Us" drop down menu at the top of the home page that says "Request a Correction," and links to this page providing instructions on requesting a correction: https://www.factcheck.org/request-a-correction/

The policy is easy to access and readers are provided with clear information about how to request corrections.

The corrections policy appears to be adhered to throughout the fact checks.

Our policy is to immediately correct errors as soon as they are brought to our attention -- sometimes from readers, but also from our own staffers. 

In an Oct. 15, 2019, story, we referenced a column written by Washington Post columnist Marc Thiessen and mistakenly spelled his first name "Mark." A reader who shares the same name -- but different spelling -- pointed out our error, and we made this correction.

Correction, Oct. 24: We originally misspelled columnist Marc Thiessen’s name. We regret the error. 

Here is that story: https://www.factcheck.org/2019/10/the-democratic-letter-to-ukraine/

In an April 17 story on COVID-19, we mistakenly said that the U.S. had the eighth lowest rate among the 10 countries most affected by COVID-19. A reader who is a professor at the University of Tennessee contacted us, and we made this correction:

Correction, April 20: We originally said the U.S. had the “eighth lowest rate” among the 10 most affected countries. It had the third lowest rate.

Here is that story: https://www.factcheck.org/2020/04/trumps-inaccurate-covid-19-death-rate-comparison/

Factcheck.org's examples of corrections indicate their quickness and willingness in responding to mistakes. It is less clear how they "as far as possible to ensure that users of the original see the correction and the corrected version" given the information they provide here.

We recently updated "Our Process" page to include a link to the IFCN complaints page: https://www.factcheck.org/our-process/

The information about complaints and the IFCN code are clearly explained on the site.

This does not apply to FactCheck.org, which is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania. 

This criteria does not appear to be applicable to factcheck.org.