https://w2.brreg.no/enhet/sok/detalj.jsp?orgnr=919036508 (Norwegian company registration authority) This is an application for renewal. There is no change in our purpose or organization. Here is the link to the relevant page of our website: https://www.faktisk.no/om-oss

Faktisk is a registered organization. It is owned by a number of large Norwegian media companies (including a PSB) that have vouched for supporting the organization.

1. Non profit Faktisk.no was launched July 5th 2017 as Norways first independent fact-checking organization to counter the spread of misinformation and disinformation in the public discourse.

2. currently 12 people work for Faktisk.no. There is one editor-in-chief, six fact checkers, two video reporters, one developer and three teachers.

3. We fact check the public discourse on all platforms. We also have a school program for fact-checking, source criticism and information literacy for children and young adults. And we teach fact checking and investigative journalism to journalists, students e.t.c. This project is named "Tenk." (Think), and is a separate department within our organization, and not part of the editorial team.  ( www.tenk.faktisk.no ) 

4. To do more of the above. 

The history of Faktisk is accounted for on their website. The staff has bios and the different activities are described in the about section on the website. The main purpose is fact-checking. 

All of our fact checks, fact stories e.t.c are published at www.faktisk.no

We also post videos and simple debunks directly on facebook as posts: www.facebook.com/faktisk/ and on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCQz_Ho0jf2x0CCHbVWRfySw/videos and on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/faktisk.no/

We also have a regular segment called on the morning show NRK P1+ radio channel (for a senior audience) https://radio.nrk.no/sok?q=faktisk.no 

We also publish updated and case based learning resources in fact checking for teachers and schools at https://tenk.faktisk.no/ (the site for our school-project Tenk (Think))

During the past six months, on the website, at least three stories are published weekly. Of these stories, one is usually labeled as a fact-check, the others as articles or news items.

I have found that all fact-checks are in the public interest. Topics are mostly about health issues (Corona related) and Norwegian politics. Occasionally other topics occur.

Faktisk.no is a non partisan and independent non profit media company. We have not received any funding and support from foreign or local state or political actors over the previous financial year. However, we are owned by six of Norways largest media companies, where the state owned public broadcaster NRK is one of them. 

Our school project "Tenk", which is a different department within our organization, received this autumn a government grant over this years revised education budget. Also, our School project "Tenk" won a tender competition for making four educational explainers for school-children about deep fakes and fake news, issued by the Norwegian Media Authority. Tenk is however a separate part of Faktisk, not involved in the editorial fact-checking work. Their finances are also separate at large. 
Regardless of this, all grant providers, donors and owners must abide our organization being independent, transparent and non-profit. We do not accept external guidelines or requirements for how our school project (or the rest of the organization) prioritizes or performs its work. Tenk follows the same strict ethical code of conduct as the rest of the organization. 

IFCN is an independent organization. However, it is partly owned by a PSB and thus have a relationship with the state. In the Nordic media system, PSB's are traditionally very strong, but they are not controlled by the state.

We have a comprehensive page about us and our organization: https://www.faktisk.no/om-oss

This page provides full information about: Our owners, the editorial staff, the school project Think, our board of directors,  our advisory council, our finance committee, our articles of association, a translation of the Fact-checkers code of principles, our internal ethics rules for Faktisk.no e.t.c. 

This page begins by explaining our commitment to free and independent journalism, and how we are bound to follow the ethical code of practice for the Norwegian press, the Norwegian editors code of conduct, the IFCN code of principles and our affiliations. 

Also, we have a page explaining our finances in detail - at least quarterly updated: https://www.faktisk.no/om-oss/finansiering 

Here, we also publish our detailed yearly accounting e.t.c. 

We are in the process of building a new website for our school project Tenk (currently running on google sites www.tenk.faktisk.no), which has just been a pilot for the last year. Tenk will follow the same transparency as Faktisk on the new site. We hope to have the first draft up and running in October/November. 

Ownership and external funding is described in the about section on the webpage. I believe that the importance of that the organisation is independent is secured not only by the standards set up by the staff, but by an advisory board that seems to be consulted when needed.

https://www.faktisk.no/faktasjekker/z0y/nei-40-prosent-blir-ikke-avvist-i-psykisk-helsevern

https://www.faktisk.no/faktasjekker/goG/nei-byradet-skal-ikke-bruke-fem-millioner-pa-rodere-asfalt-i-sognsveien-i-oslo

https://www.faktisk.no/faktasjekker/yDQ/bilister-har-ikke-vikeplikt-for-syklende-pa-grunn-av-gangfelt

https://www.faktisk.no/faktasjekker/Ljj/nei-det-kan-ikke-slas-fast-at-konsulentutgiftene-i-politiet-har-okt-med-70-prosent-siden-2013

https://www.faktisk.no/faktasjekker/PpB/nei-pensjonistene-far-ikke-mindre-a-rutte-med-for-femte-gang-pa-seks-ar

https://www.faktisk.no/faktasjekker/nRg/nei-det-ble-ikke-kjopt-og-solgt-koronatester-for-flere-ar-siden

https://www.faktisk.no/faktasjekker/6Zx/nei-nordmenn-har-ikke-mattet-jobbe-i-40-ar-for-a-fa-samme-pensjon-som-flyktninger

https://www.faktisk.no/faktasjekker/a0G/nei-dette-dokumentet-beskriver-ikke-fns-agenda-21-eller-agenda-2030

https://www.faktisk.no/faktasjekker/Z0q/nei-koronadodstallene-er-ikke-kunstig-blast-opp

https://www.faktisk.no/faktasjekker/qPX/det-er-ikke-forbudt-a-flagge-offentlig-med-et-annet-flagg-enn-det-norske

The selection above is the ten last fact-checks published - as is. They show in our opinion our diverse and impartial fact-checking, based on current affairs, virality and the criterias and methodology described.

We also publish a large number of so called fact-stories, providing in depth or background on topics regarding current misinformation and disinformation. These does not conclude like a standard fact-check - however they follow the same strict rules regarding high standards, impartiality and non bias. 

From the reviewed fact-checks I have come to the conclusion that the applicant always use a similar method in terms of sources. They contact a person that has made a claim, and include their response in the fact-check. They use official sources, most oftenly national statistics as sources and they explain clearly whenever they do an interpretation of their own of statistical material. They interview experts or government officials, politicians and different types of administrative experts as sources. Links are provided to online source material.

Our menu option "Methodology" brings you to our detailed methodology-section: https://www.faktisk.no/metode  

Also, since we are part of the 3PFC-partnership with Facebook, we have a thorough description of how this works as well: https://www.faktisk.no/om-oss/facebook 

Also, we have also hyperlinked our rating in every fact-check to the explanation of the rating scale on our Methodology page. https://www.faktisk.no/metode#skala

I have not found that the applicant are focused on one side. The methodology of Faktisk is clearly described and easy to understand. The selection of claims are described.

Actually, this criteria is not really followed by Faktisk.no. However, in the examples that I have reviewed, I did not find it relevant to explain the interest of the sources. What is the interest of a quoted researcher? That is kind of beside the point if the source is doing an expert evaluation. In most cases it is also common knowledge to know something about the source's interest, such as the opposition trying to critizise the current government. Because of this, I think Faktisk is compliant.

Yes, Faktisk is an independent organization.

We are completely open about key actors, boards, current and former staff e.t.c here: https://www.faktisk.no/om-oss 

Our staff: https://www.faktisk.no/om-oss#redaksjonen

Our board: https://www.faktisk.no/om-oss#styret

Our advisory board: https://www.faktisk.no/om-oss#faktiskradet

In this section, we also give an in depth insight to our our company structure, economics, board of directors, e.t.c.

See also answer 1.6. 

There is no clear place on the website with a statement, rather bits and pieces of such a statement is found in many places on the website. The applicant is transparent on it's methods and staff bios are provided. Because they have translated the criteria for IFCN compliance as part of their about section, I believe they are compliant. 

Yes, sources are linked to when possible. They use official data, they contact government officials and other administrative staff. They contact individuals behind a claim. All is accounted for in the fact-checks in a transparent manner.

The only time I have come across secondary sources in the Faktisk.no fact-checks are when they refer to other international fact-checkers to show that the claim has been reviewed before by others.

I have found that usually, several sources are used. There are times when only one source is used and then the source have been official data provided by Norwegian authorities.

As previously stated, interest of the sources are not explicitly described. However, my assessment is that Faktisk still is compliant as it would not be relevant to describe such interests when they are not primarily about the fact-check topic.

We are an independent organization. This is the link to the Norwegian Central Coordinating Register for Legal Entities: https://w2.brreg.no/enhet/sok/detalj.jsp?orgnr=919036508

The applicant is an independent organization and ownership is clearly stated. A detailed account for funding is provided in the section "Finansiering" (Funding).

Here is the link to our "About"-page: https://www.faktisk.no/om-oss

Here is the link to our "Finance transparency"-page: https://www.faktisk.no/om-oss/finansiering

The nature of the organization is transparently described. As previously mentioned, a detailed account for funding is provided in the section "Finansiering" (Funding).

Here is the link to our "About"-page: https://www.faktisk.no/om-oss

It is clear that the organization is owned by a number of media companies, but that the organization is independent. The editorial staff have clear titles and bios.

https://www.faktisk.no/om-oss#redaksjonen

Yes, relevant bios are provided.

We inform and link to our contact details in the footer of every page we publish - as well as in the corrections-section on our "about"-page: https://www.faktisk.no/metode#rettelser-og-klager

The details and emails to all our staff is provided here: https://www.faktisk.no/om-oss#redaksjonen

Also, the emails to all our fact-checkers are linked in their bylines in every fact-check. 

Most of our daily dialog is on social media, through our fb-page https://www.facebook.com/faktisk

I do not believe Faktisk encourages users to communicate but it is stated that it is possible to do so and e-mail adresses are provided. I believe that the communication is encouraged through the Faktisk social media accounts rather than the main website. 

https://www.faktisk.no/metode

Yes, the applicant has a very pedagogical methods section on the website.

Yes, claims seems to be selected based on news events and reach. In the case of Facebook, it is always stated if a fact-check has been published as a cooperation with them.

In the case where there are doubts, there are several types of assessents of the claim. Both supportive or against the claim. For example, in a fact-check about unemployement, Faktisk has interpreted official data and tried to find a possible explanation to a false claim by helping the audience to interpret the data differently, both dismissing and approving the claim.

I have not found that there are difference in terms of standard of evidence used. Naturally, the standard of the evidence differ depending on the topic, for example a story about two norwegian scientists inventing a projector that turned out to be fake are using combinations of official databases to search for people, while another story are using assessments by epidemiologists on many uncertain findings that are unfolding due to the Corona pandemic. It is very hard to rate these different types of evidence against each other. My assessment is that Faktisk try to find the best available evidence.

Yes, individuals that have made a claim are contacted. Their response to a claim is published, even though it might not be pleasant to publish. For example one person responded by stating that Faktisk is not a credible source, and Faktisk included this in their fact-check :)

As earlier mentioned, in the footer of every published fact-check and page, in the dialog on social media and with a thorough description of our methodology in our methodology-page: https://www.faktisk.no/metode

On Faktisk.no we ask readers to send us claims by e-mail: kontakt@faktisk.no and we receive claims through our active twitter account twitter.com/faktisk_n

Also, when it comes to complains, we direct to: https://www.faktisk.no/metode#rettelser-og-klager

I wouldn't say that Faktisk encourage users to send in Factchecks, but there is a sentence at the bottom of the page stating that you can send in claims to the signatory. Here, it is not described what readers can expect in terms of what is fact-checkable. However, this is thouroghly described in the Methods section. 

Our correction policy is thoroughly described in our methodology-section: https://www.faktisk.no/metode - and is also directly announced on our front page and on the footer of every page generated on Faktisk.no : https://www.faktisk.no/metode#rettelser-og-klager

When it comes to policies: Our About us section (https://www.faktisk.no/om-oss) has a translated version of the IFCN Code of Principles, and outlined the policy of article 5: A commitment to an Open & Honest Corrections Policy.

In our translation, we state: "We have a transparent corrections policy and follow it always. Our corrections are clearly marked and openly published in compliant with our corrections policy, to make sure our readers sees the correct version."

Also, as previously described, we outline our "House ethics rules", which comes in addition to the Norwegian Press Association's Code of Ethics, which applies to us (https://presse.no/pfu/etiske-regler/vaer-varsom-plakaten/vvpl-engelsk/). These bind us to fair treatment of all sources.

To comply to the standards of media outlets in Norway, our footer includes the name and email address to the editor-in-chief, as well as our general contact address. It also hyperlinks to the Norwegian Press Association's Code of Ethics, the Norwegian Editor's Association’s Code of Ethics, and to the IFCN Code Of Principles. The text says:

"Vi arbeider etter Vær varsom-plakatens regler for god presseskikk, Redaktørplakaten og faktasjekkplakaten. Den som mener seg rammet av urettmessig publisering, oppfordres til å ta kontakt med redaksjonen."

Which translates to: "We follow the Norwegian Press Code of Ethics (link), the Norwegian Editors code of principles (link) and the Fact-Checkers code of principles (link). Anyone who feels afflicted by unfair publication (hard to translate literally) should contact us (link to email).

Also, we publish full bios and contact details for all our staff in the About us section. Every fact-check has a byline with the name and email link to the fact-checkers who wrote the article.

We also have a very active dialogue with our readers by email, Twitter and Facebook page - were the discussion is live almost 24/7.

In addition: Any changes or corrections in a fact-check into a separate section at the end of the fact-check (in example: https://www.faktisk.no/faktasjekker/yDQ/bilister-har-ikke-vikeplikt-for-syklende-pa-grunn-av-gangfelt ), we also have added a separate change/correction logg, which can be followed both on our statistics-section or by RSS-feed: https://www.faktisk.no/endringer

Yes, the corrections procedure is clearly explained on the website. 

Regarding the assessors note to Criteria 6.2: Could the assessor to try again, as the link should bring you to the right place. The hyperlink in question points to the headline #faktasjekkplakaten (IFCN Code of Principles) - "https://www.faktisk.no/om-oss#faktasjekkplakaten". The headline which the assessor refers to (#Vedtekter) is the one above on the same page. However, we are not able to reproduce this bug. The referral link works for us both on Crome, Safari, Edge and Mobile IOS. 

If the assessor still get the wrong headline by clicking the link, we would like to know which browser and what link it refers to so we can investigate it further.

The corrections procedure is described under a headline in the about section called (translated from Norwegian) "corrections and complaints". Here a Norwegian external documents with national journalistic ethics guidelines are linked to as well as a translated version of the IFCN guidelines. However, please note that when clicking the link "Den internasjonale faktasjekkplakaten" in the Method section, it does not take you to the right position in the document, rather it takes you to information about the company "Vedtekter". This is a minor edit, that I think the signatory has to change.

The corrections procedure is described under a headline in the about section called (translated from Norwegian) "corrections and complaints". Here a Norwegian external documents with national journalistic ethics guidelines are linked to as well as a translated version of the IFCN guidelines. 

Any changes or corrections in a fact-check into a separate section at the end of the fact-check (in example: https://www.faktisk.no/faktasjekker/yDQ/bilister-har-ikke-vikeplikt-for-syklende-pa-grunn-av-gangfelt ), we also have added a separate change/correction logg, which can be followed both on our statistics-section or by RSS-feed: https://www.faktisk.no/endringer

All corrections and changes are dealt with this way, and minor disputes mostly solved without further issue.

However, as stated above, The Norwegian Association's Code of Ethics, which also applies to us, gives the public right to complain to the Norwegian Press Complaints Commission. There has been two such complaints against us since our last assessment:

Case 1: https://presse.no/pfu-sak/058-20/

Case 2: https://presse.no/pfu-sak/033-20/

The Commission completely acquitted us on all counts in both cases. However they show that we follow the process accordingly.

Most cases for the Press Complaints Commission are publicly streamed for transparency - and generates media attention.

This is from the latest case (including the stream): https://journalisten.no/faktasjekk-faktiskno-pfu/faktiskno-gikk-fri-i-pfu-etter-klage-fra-krf-politiker/414692

And this is from the first one (including the stream): https://journalisten.no/facebook-facebook-grupper-faktasjekk/soppeljournalistikk-mente-klager-pfu-var-av-en-annen-oppfatning/418463

We have, as far as we know, not received any complaints through IFCN. 

Faktisk explains clearly how they do corrections and publish them at the end of every article. The additional corrections log is fantastic if you are looking for all corrections made to the stories on the website.

The applicant provides two examples of formal complaints from the public to the Norsk Presseforbund. The conclusions from these two examples illustrate Faktisk's compliance with the Norwegian press ethics/code of conduct. In both cases it was decided they had not violated this code. These examples were reported on in the trade press and they are proof of that Faktisk follows the code of conduct for journalists in Norway, are using a transparent method when doing fact-checks and that they follow principles of corrections.

There have in fact been cases where the public has complained to IFCN about Faktisk. I know this as I have myself assessed them, but perhaps these were not reported back to Faktisk and it was a few years back.

How to complain and the link to IFCNs complaints policy is in our complaints and corrections section: on Faktisk.no : https://www.faktisk.no/metode#rettelser-og-klager

This is part of our methodology page - and linked to from every footer on every fact-check and published page. 

The signatory provides a link to the IFCN and explains that it is possible to reach them with complaints.

We are not. 

Faktisk is owned by several media companies and not a unit of one media company. I suppose they are compliant.