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

Be advised that we have gone through a comprehensive redesign both of layout and design concept, where the most prominent change is that we have got rid of the traditional color-scale, and now operate with a written conclusion without rigid categories. This gives more space for nuances and a better focus on the context of the fact-check. 

Also, the redesign includes a much more prominent marketing to encourage users to communicate with your editorial team through a large "Do you know about something we should fact-check"-promotion above the footer on every page. This links to a simple and very efficient tip-form which has increased our incoming tips formidably. 

The applicant is a registered organization owned by six separate Norwegian news organizations. There are sufficient information about the legal status and ownership on the applicant's website.

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 16 people work for Faktisk.no. There is one editor-in-chief, five fact checkers, two video reporters, one project manager, one developer, one analytics manager and five teachers.

3. We fact check the public discourse on all platforms. We also have a school department 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 ). Last but not least, we are in the process of building an insight and analytics department for better monitoring and understanding of information disorders in the Norwegian and Nordic public discourse. This latter initiative is part of the NORDIS project, building a Nordic EDMO hub together with Källkritikbyrän in Sweden, TjekDet in Denmark, Faktabaari in Finland and the universities of Aarhus, Bergen, Uppsala and Helsinki. 

4. To do more of the above - and succeeding with building a sustainable insight and analytics department and NORDIS Hub. 

The applicant is a fact-checking organization with an excellent track record. They have won awards and are well known in Norway and abroad. Their purpose is primarily to factcheck but they are also engaging in activities related to elementary education in schools and research projects with Nordic universities. 

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 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)) and on the FB and Instagram pages for Tenk (https://www.facebook.com/tenk.faktisk / https://www.instagram.com/tenk.faktisk/)

The layout does not easily display publication date to the reader, however the publication date is available a bit further down on the page than expected.

The applicant has published approx. 26 fact checks over the past 6 months.

The review of a sample of articles does not show any signs of support for any party or political standpoint. 

Faktisk.no is a non partisan and independent non profit media company. We do not receive direct operational funding or 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.

We did apply for, and receive, approximately 1,2 MNOK from the Innovation and development grant scheme given by the Norwegian Media Authority as part of the Norwegian Media support scheme. This grant was given as support for building our new insight and analytics department. More about these scheme: https://www.medietilsynet.no/mediestotte/innovasjons--og-utviklingstilskudd/

We are also part of the nordic EDMO-hub NORDIS, which is funded by European Digital Media Observatory (EDMO) grant money. EDMO is an independent consortium funded by the EU. More about EDMO here: https://edmo.eu/edmo-at-a-glance/

Our school project "Tenk", which is a different department within our organization, received in 2021 a government grant over the state education budget. This grant will probably continue. 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. Editorial independence is secured by law in Norway, and by the various ethical code of conducts accepted by all established media organizations and their editors. 

The initiative is independent and clearly states the funding from other organizations. Some of these are state actors, however my assessment is that such funding does not affect editorial decision making.

We have several pages about us and our organization: https://www.faktisk.no/om-oss (About us) / https://www.faktisk.no/slik-jobber-vi (How we work) / https://www.faktisk.no/redaksjonen-og-styret (Editorial staff and the board) / https://www.faktisk.no/finansiering (Finances). 

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

The first "About us" 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/finansiering which discloses our full financial statements and accounting year by year from our launch in 2017. Also we try to keep a public update on our current accounting for the current year. 

We have also a new website for our school project Tenk (www.tenk.faktisk.no), where we follow the same transparency as Faktisk: https://tenk.faktisk.no/om-oss (About us) https://tenk.faktisk.no/finansiering (Finances).

Yes, the different types of fundors are clearly listed and in the application these relationships are explained and appear not interfere with editorial independence, in particular this is the case for the cooperation with Facebook. However, the relationships with fundors are only partly described on the about page. It would be fantastic if the applicant could explain the different commitments similar to how they describe it under the subheadline "Andre bidragsytere".

https://www.faktisk.no/artikler/jn972/forbudt-a-sproyte-amandinepoteter-med-giftig-stoff

https://www.faktisk.no/artikler/0qx34/nei-mdg-vil-ikke-forby-vedfyring

https://www.faktisk.no/artikler/zm9we/nei-koronavaksinen-inneholder-ikke-grafen

https://www.faktisk.no/artikler/zwnqk/ufore-som-har-fatt-redusert-barnetillegget-taper-i-snitt-over-50-000-kroner

https://www.faktisk.no/artikler/06m53/nei-dette-bildet-viser-ikke-franskmenn-som-star-opp-for-sin-frihet

https://www.faktisk.no/artikler/je9re/antall-sauer-tatt-av-rovdyr-er-mer-enn-halvert-de-siste-atte-arene

https://www.faktisk.no/artikler/0re76/nei-denne-boksen-reduserer-ikke-stromregningen-din

https://www.faktisk.no/artikler/0g5xv/frp-bruker-upresise-utslippstall-for-norge-vs-kina

https://www.faktisk.no/artikler/z4m8y/nei-300-000-underskrifter-gir-ikke-folkeavstemning

https://www.faktisk.no/artikler/0g8o8/smitten-blant-unge-er-100-ganger-hoyere-enn-nrk-hevdet

The selection above show in our opinion our diverse and impartial fact-checking, based on current affairs, virality and the criterias and methodology described. Note that we have done a thorough redesign since our last evaluation, leaving our scale behind and focusing on a written conclusion instead. This to have more focus on the context and often complexity of a fact-check, and not on the color of the rating (less polarizing). 

We also publish a large number of so called fact-stories ( https://www.faktisk.no/sjangere/artikkel ), 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. During the pandemic, this format has in large been preferred on covid-related matters, as it has been about science in progress with far to many unknowns. 

The format of the fact-checks are set with clear claims and conclusions displayed. I found one example that differs, in this case it was a video with the content. Claims made by different Norwegian political actors are covered, using the systematic methodology.

https://www.faktisk.no/slik-jobber-vi (How we work)

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  

The applicant presents excellent descriptions on the methodology behind the fact-checking stories on their website in the section "Slik jobber vi" (This is how we carry out our work).

When possible, I find from the review of sampled articles that Faktisk.no makes the interest of the person/organization behind a claim evident in an excellent way. See for example the Amandine-potato story, the wooden fire stove-story and the story about the manipulated French, or actually Russian image.

Based on the sampled articles I have reviewed, I have found that the applicant does not take political or policy positions.

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

Our staff and board: https://www.faktisk.no/redaksjonen-og-styret (Editorial staff and board)

About the School-department and their staff: https://tenk.faktisk.no/om-oss 

See also answer 1.6. 

Yes there is a policy. It is somewhat nested, but available here: https://www.faktisk.no/vedtekter-etikkregler-og-faktasjekkplakaten 

In many fact checks, one expert or authority has been contacted or referenced to, sometimes several. Relevant people, individuals or representatives from organizations responsible for making false claims are interviewed or at least contacted. Other media are often cited as sources, reports or documents are cited and most often presented with links. However, the layout makes it quite difficult to spot the links as they are underlined in almost the same color as the background color. Graphs have sources, often to offical data. 

Primary sources are used in most fact checks. There are also many references to secondary sources where relevant. One isse that may be problematic over time is that images/screenshots of websites/social media or websites are rarely presented with a time stamp. 

Yes, from the reviewed sample, I can conclude that multiple sources are always used.

Yes, see also my comment for criteria 2.3. When relevant and possible, Faktisk.no truly succeeds in explaining interests of those that make claims.

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

Yes, the website is detailed in terms of sources of funding and the applicant is an independent organization.

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/finansiering

Yes, the ownership status is clearly explained.

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

There is a page focused on the editorial organization of the applicant with bios and titles making it clear who is in editorial control.

https://www.faktisk.no/redaksjonen-og-styret 

Yes, there are images and bios of the staff presented on the website, including contact details.

We inform and link to our contact details through a huge "Do you know of anything we should fact-check?" above the footer of every page - as well as in the corrections-section on our "How we work"-page: https://www.faktisk.no/slik-jobber-vi 

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

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

At the bottom of each page, there is a question stating "Do you know of things that you think we should fact-check?" and a link to "contact us". This is very clear prompt to make contact.

This is the "How we work"-page: https://www.faktisk.no/slik-jobber-vi 

This also links to a more thorough explainer about our Facebook Third Party Fact-checking Program partnership: https://www.faktisk.no/facebook 

The methodology is clearly presented.

The applicant states regularly that a claim has been selected because several readers have contacted them and asked for the claim to be checked, thus signalling that there are possibilities to interact and contribute with claims. It is clear from the methodology description how claims are selected.

The fact checks are balanced. Both supporting and contrasting evidence are provided when suitable.

Yes, in the reviewed sample of articles, there does not appear to be differences.

In several of the fact-checks the person behind the claim is interviewed, and they also sometimes comment on the conclusion of the fact check. For example, in the sample, I found some fact checks were politicians sometimes debated the credibility of Faktisk.no once a claim was falsified. In those instances this debate was transparently published at the end of the story.

As earlier mentioned, above the footer of every published fact-check and page there is ha huge encouragement to send us claims to check. Also we do in the dialog on social media and with a thorough description of our methodology in our methodology-page: https://www.faktisk.no/slik-jobber-vi 

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

Our footer has all the relevant links to both our contact mail, corrections, editor in chief e.t.c.

Yes, the applicant clearly encourage users to contact them and this information is available on each page of the website.

Our correction policy is thoroughly described in our methodology-section "How we work": https://www.faktisk.no/slik-jobber-vi - and is also directly announced on our front page and on the footer of every page generated on Faktisk.no. The Footer also link to our ethical guidelines and a translated version of the IFCN Code of Principles: https://www.faktisk.no/vedtekter-etikkregler-og-faktasjekkplakaten 

When it comes to policies: Our "How we work" section ( https://www.faktisk.no/slik-jobber-vi ) 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" ( https://www.faktisk.no/vedtekter-etikkregler-og-faktasjekkplakaten ), 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 encourage readers to contact us if they have a complaint, linking to our correction policy. The footer also 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. 

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/artikler/jy9mm/sa-mye-har-mdg-politikeren-floyet-pa-to-ar ), 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, there is a clear corrections policy in the "Slik jobber vi" section.

Yes, the policy is sufficient and meets the criteria

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/artikler/jy9mm/sa-mye-har-mdg-politikeren-floyet-pa-to-ar ), 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/259-20/ 

Case 2: https://presse.no/pfu-sak/029-21/

The Commission acquitted us on all counts in both cases. The process shows that we follow the policy accordingly.

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

This is an article (and the stream) about the first case: https://journalisten.no/corax-film-faktisk-faktiskno/pfu-reagerte-pa-faktiskno-tittel/459157

This is the stream from the second case: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzOioqMAsgA

This is an article about the second case: https://m24.no/faktiskno-hrs-pfu/faktiskno-gikk-fri-i-pfu-etter-hrs-klage--en-blank-frifinnelse/360378 

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

It appears as if the correction policy is in use and that the applicant follows the IFCN criteria.

Our correction policy is thoroughly described in our methodology-section "How we work", also with the link to IFCNs complaints policy: https://www.faktisk.no/slik-jobber-vi.

This is also directly announced on our front page and on the footer of every page generated on Faktisk.no. 

The Footer also link to our ethical guidelines and a translated version of the IFCN Code of Principles: https://www.faktisk.no/vedtekter-etikkregler-og-faktasjekkplakaten                            

Yes, there are sufficient information provided on how to file a complaint.

We are not.

Not applicable.