Maldita.es is a non-profit foundation dedicated to fact-checking. Currently the media outlet is registered and working with two legal entities:

ASOCIACION MALDITA CONTRA LA DESINFORMACIÓN: PERIODISMO, EDUCACIÓN, INVESTIGACIÓN Y DATOS EN NUEVOS FORMATOS. Registered in the Registro Nacional de Asociaciones: Sección: 1• 1 under the number 616385 and Tax registration number is G88206487.

FUNDACION MALDITA.ES CONTRA LA DESINFORMACIÓN: PERIODISMO, EDUCACIÓN, INVESTIGACIÓN Y DATOS EN NUEVOS FORMATOS. Registered in the Registro de Fundaciones of the Justice Minister of Spain with the scripture number 3409 and 2255 and Tax registration number is G88519038.

Both legal entities continue to coexist, due to the impossibility of definitively closing the association due to commitments and projects contracted prior to the registration of the foundation.a

The Foundation has a board of trustees made up of Clara Jiménez Cruz, Julio Montes, Eva Garzón, Javier Gómez and the association represented by Ignacio Calle. Francisco Javier Cremades is the Secretary. The Foundation is registered in the Justice Ministry under the number 2330.

Our registered bylaws and our registration number are both on our website:

https://maldita.es/malditas-cuentas-de-donde-vienen-donde-van-nuestros-ingresos/

https://maldita.es/aviso-legal/ 

The applicant is a legally registered organization. Details on their registration with the government are easily findable on their Legal Warnings page as well as on their revenues page. They have two legal entities, and both are detailed in their website.

The applicant is linked to two legally registered organizations, an NGO and a foundation, and the information is easy to find of their webpage, including the registration documents. 

The applicant is linked to two legally registered organizations, an NGO and a foundation, and the information is easy to find of their webpage, including the registration documents. 

Maldita.es was legally founded on September 27, 2018 under the name Maldita Association against disinformation: journalism, education, investigation and data in new formats Section: 1 • 1 National Number: 616385. The bylaws of the Association can be accessed here: https://es.scribd.com/document/456561523/Estatutos-Asociacion-Maldita?secret_password=bp7WTxz558QDs4w9AV7z 

Before 2018 Maldita was already an operating fact-checker but we didn’t have a legal entity: we were a group of journalists dedicated to a project in our spare time.

In the quest for Maldita.es to be transparent and supervised by civil society in November 2020 Maldita.es is also registered as The Maldita.es Foundation against disinformation: journalism, education, research and data in new formats. Our bylaws for the foundation can be accessed here: https://es.scribd.com/document/456562725/ESTATUTOS-FUNDACIO-N-MALDITA-ES

Maldita.es’ operations started as a non-profit media outlet to fight disinformation and promote transparency through fact-checking and data journalism techniques. Its main mission is to provide citizens with tools, technology and information that allows them to build informed opinions and make informed choices.

Currently 34 people work for Maldita.es either full, part time, as external collaborators or as interns:

Direction: CEO, Director and Deputy Director

Maldito Bulo (debunking): Coordinator and 4 journalists

Maldito Dato (political fact-checking): Coordinator and 2 journalists

Maldita Ciencia (science and health): Coordinator and 3 journalists

Maldita Migration (migration): 1 journalist

Maldito Feminismo (gender): 1 journalist

Maldita Hemeroteca (archive): 1 journalist

Community: 1 coordinator, 1 community manager and 1 graphic designer

Projects: 1 projects and impact coordinator, 1 projects and impact assistant and 1 editorial projects coordinator

Maldita Tecnología (Technology): 1 journalist

Maldita Educa (Media literacy): 1 coordinator and 2 technicians

Technology: 2 developers

Administration: 1 accountant and 1 external advisor

Public Policy: 1 coordinator

Academic Research: 1 coordinator

Maldita.es is divided into sections which target specific themes and audiences: 

Maldito Bulo dedicated to fact-check digital misinformation selected through crowdsourcing techniques https://maldita.es/malditobulo/

Maldito Dato dedicated to fact-checking political discourse with data journalism techniques, journalistic investigation using resources to access public information, and promoting government transparency. https://maldita.es/malditodato/

Maldita Hemeroteca dedicated to verify political speech using archive resources. https://maldita.es/malditahemeroteca/

Maldita Ciencia dedicated to the scientific dissemination and fact-check of topics related to health, food, physics, chemistry or any topic related to science. https://maldita.es/malditaciencia/

Maldita Tecnología uses journalism, tools and education to answer questions about privacy, data usage, technology ethics and digital rights. https://maldita.es/malditatecnologia/

Maldita Migración verifies misinformation around migrants and hate speech. https://migracion.maldita.es/

Maldito Feminismo fact-checks misinformation around gender issues. https://feminismo.maldita.es/

Maldita Te Explica is our section dedicated to explainers about politics and current events in general https://maldita.es/maldita-te-explica/

Maldita Educa is our media literacy project which develops and creates educational content on critical thinking and fact-checking https://educa.maldita.es/

This year we have a project on nutrition and scientific dissemination and fact-checking of topics related to food called Maldita Alimentación https://alimentacion.maldita.es/

In the last year we also hired a Public Policy and Institutional Development Coordination to advise regulators on how to fight misinformation. These efforts also are related to the creation of an Academic Research Coordination that allows the organization to create alliances with academics and researchers that study disinformation in order to create knowledge that enables Maldita.es better understand disinformation phenomena in orden to make decisions based on facts and data. In the non editorial side of the organization we also have a Technological Development Team that creates tools that helps our fact-checking operations and provides better services to users.

In the coming year we plan to get much more involved in advising regulators on how to fight misinformation: we acknowledge that one of the risks that the current situation has is the fact that a bad internet regulation willing to tackle misinformation can damage freedom of speech and democracy as a whole and that our expertise should be put to service to prevent that since a Digital Services Act is currently being debated in the EU. 

We want to continue investing on developing technological tools that can help our fact-checking operations and others in the battle against misinformation and we also want to partner with researchers and incorporate academic profiles to our operation in order to conduct investigations using all the data around misinformation that we have gathered throughout the years. Our aim is also to reach a better coordination with other European and Spanish speaking fact-checkers to cooperate in amplifying fact-checking reach in general. 

The applicant was founded with the clear purpose of working with fact-checking. It was established as a legal entity in 2018, and a Foundation with the same purpose was created in November 2020. They have grown their team to 34, counting full time, part time, collaborators and interns. Their main activity is the fact checking unit, but other sections, in the same websites, publish journalistic content on science, tech, gender, explanatories, among others. They are planning on expanding the fight against misinformation, in terms of technology and public policy. They are fully compliant.

The two organizations are exclusively dedicated to the purpose of fact-checking and countering disinformation. The members of the team and their specific roles in the organizations are clearly disclosed on the applicant's website: https://maldita.es/transparencia-organizacion/ 

The two organizations are exclusively dedicated to the purpose of fact-checking and countering disinformation. The members of the team and their specific roles in the organizations are clearly disclosed on the applicant's website: https://maldita.es/transparencia-organizacion/ 

We divide our fact-checking operation in three different main branches:

- Maldito Bulo, our debunking section: https://maldita.es/malditobulo/

- Maldito Dato, our political fact-checking section: https://maldita.es/malditodato/

- Maldita Ciencia: https://maldita.es/malditaciencia/

Furthermore, we have sections for specific topics that we feel need attention, although any fact-check listed in them will also be in the general section and responds to the specific methodology:

- Maldita Migración: https://migracion.maldita.es/

- Maldito Feminismo: https://feminismo.maldita.es/

- Maldito Alimentación: https://alimentacion.maldita.es/

We publish an average of 7 articles a day of which at least 3 are fact-checks.     

The applicant meets and surpasses the minimum amount required of fact checks. They publish daily, with several checks on the same day. This rhythm of publication is constant.

The applicant has been publishing more than an average of one fact check a week in the last six months and also prior to 2022-11-23, the date of the latest application.

The applicant has been publishing more than an average of one fact check a week in the last six months and also prior to 2022-11-23, the date of the latest application.

No additional information required. 

All checks published by the applicant refer to issues of public importance. They tend to check claims around covid, immigration, natural incidents like the eruption of the Cumbre Vieja volcano, and politics.

All those topics are covered by checking and explaining issues in terms of its importance to the audience.

All the fact checks focus on topics of public interest such as: election disinformation (related to the general elections taking place in Spain on July 23 2023), migration and migrants (regarding migrants living in Spain or France, Ukrainian refugees), public spending, health, gender based discrimination and climate change.  

All the fact checks focus on topics of public interest such as: election disinformation (related to the general elections taking place in Spain on July 23 2023), migration and migrants (regarding migrants living in Spain or France, Ukrainian refugees), public spending, health, gender based discrimination and climate change.  

All our commercial, financial and institucional relationships are public. Every year we publish our accounts, you can see our 2020 balance sheets here: 

Association: https://maldita.es/uploads/public/docs/balance_asociacion_maldita_2020.pdf

Foundation: https://maldita.es/uploads/public/docs/balance_fundacion_maldita_2020.pdf

We also publish a breakdown of our income and budget in our web: 

https://maldita.es/malditas-cuentas-de-donde-vienen-donde-van-nuestros-ingresos/

Through our Public Policy and Institutional Affairs office we talk to state officials and political parties regularly both at a National and European level. Our aim is to provide regulators with the best evidence and academic research available around misinformation together with assisting them through our expertise for a better understanding of the problem. We also publish position papers and quarterly reports that can be found here: https://maldita.es/politicas-publicas-desarrollo-institucional

We do have a commercial relationship with some local and regional governments for Media literacy courses and disinformation alert systems which don’t represent more than 2% of our 2021 annual budget and have been announced publicly on our site: https://maldita.es/nosotros/20201128/maldita-es-colaborara-con-la-junta-de-andalucia-para-luchar-contra-la-desinformacion-mediante-un-servicio-de-deteccion-temprana/

In 2021, Maldita.es has received 2 grants from public resources (Spain and the European Union) none of them are directly related to our fact-checking operation: they cover aside specific and predefined projects around technology understanding, research and media literacy. All of this projects have been publicly communicated on our website:

- Iberifier, a regional observatory on disinformation: https://maldita.es/nosotros/20210503/malditaes-miembro-iberifier-observatorio-desinformacion-espana-portugal-comision-europea/

- FECYT and Maldita Educa: support to build a media literacy repository https://maldita.es/nosotros/20210729/Maldita_Educa_gana_beca_Fecyt_herramientas_contra_desinformacion/  

Although the applicant does have some sources of revenue connected to government programs, they are transparent about these programs, and they do not represent influences in the applicant's coverage.

They earn revenue from media literacy courses for local and regional governments, but that account for only 2% of their budget. They have also advised state official at the national and European level, but only regarding public policy por disinformation (their work in this sense can be found here https://maldita.es/politicas-publicas-desarrollo-institucional).

Finally, they have received 2 grants from public officials in 2021 to fight disinformation and spread Media Literacy, but that is tied to specific projects.

Overall, there isn't political influence from state actors in their output.

The applicant is fully transparent regarding their sources of funding: https://maldita.es/malditas-cuentas-de-donde-vienen-donde-van-nuestros-ingresos/

The applicant explains clearly in the application that the editorial independence is not affected by any relationship with Spanish public institutions and political actors. Moreover, the applicant's policy of neutrality is published on its website: https://maldita.es/politica-de-neutralidad/ 

Although the applicant receives grants from Spanish public institutions, the amount accounts for a minor percentage and it does not affect its editorial independence. For instance, in 2022, Maldita.es provided fact checking services to the Andalusian Regional Government (Junta de Andalucía) consisting in monitoring social media and other media outlets through which disinformation could be disseminated. 

In 2022, most of funding came from contracts with Facebook and WhatsApp for fact-checking services and from grants from the European Union. 

Concluding, the applicant is transparent regarding the sources of income and its editorial work is independent.

The applicant is fully transparent regarding their sources of funding: https://maldita.es/malditas-cuentas-de-donde-vienen-donde-van-nuestros-ingresos/

The applicant explains clearly in the application that the editorial independence is not affected by any relationship with Spanish public institutions and political actors. Moreover, the applicant's policy of neutrality is published on its website: https://maldita.es/politica-de-neutralidad/ 

Although the applicant receives grants from Spanish public institutions, the amount accounts for a minor percentage and it does not affect its editorial independence. For instance, in 2022, Maldita.es provided fact checking services to the Andalusian Regional Government (Junta de Andalucía) consisting in monitoring social media and other media outlets through which disinformation could be disseminated. 

In 2022, most of funding came from contracts with Facebook and WhatsApp for fact-checking services and from grants from the European Union. 

Concluding, the applicant is transparent regarding the sources of income and its editorial work is independent.

All our income sources are listed and deeply explained and with additional information on links in our website: https://maldita.es/malditas-cuentas-de-donde-vienen-donde-van-nuestros-ingresos/

Furthermore, we have a neutrality policy that applies to all the members of the team and we specify in all our projects and contracts that the editorial decisions depend only on us and are driven by our methodologies. Here you can find our neutrality policy: https://maldita.es/politica-de-neutralidad/

In their Revenue page, the applicant explains transparently all their sources. Also, they have a clear statement of neutrality, where they ensure that Maldita is neutral, has no influence from political parties, and that political positions of their staff is separate from positions of the company.

The policy of neutrality, including the ethical code signed by each member of the team, clearly explains how the applicant keeps its editorial independence: https://maldita.es/politica-de-neutralidad/

The policy of neutrality, including the ethical code signed by each member of the team, clearly explains how the applicant keeps its editorial independence: https://maldita.es/politica-de-neutralidad/

MALDITO BULO

We verify claims using the same standard for every piece. We do not concentrate our fact-checking on any one side, since we have a process in which we rank the viralization of disinformation according to its spread on social media together with the reports of our community. We follow the same process on every issue and search for the necessary data to debunk a piece of misinformation no matter who it may benefit. We do not take policy positions on the issues we fact-check. We decide what to fact-check first considering virality and dangerosity to public health, social peace, etc. Here are some examples:

No, Pedro Sánchez y su familia no se han ido de vacaciones a Doñana ni el fin de semana previo ni durante Semana Santa

https://maldita.es/malditobulo/20210405/pedro-sanchez-familia-vacaciones-semana-santa-donana-marzo/

No, Pablo Iglesias no cobrará 120.000 € al año por haber sido vicepresidente del Gobierno al dejar el cargo ni una “indemnización millonaria” y cada vez que dimite un ministro el BOE lo anuncia como “cese”

https://maldita.es/malditobulo/20210410/pablo-iglesias-120000-ano-cargo-vicepresidente-indemnizacion-millonaria-boe-cese/

No, el "casoplón" que aparece en esta foto no es de Santiago Abascal: es de Messi

https://maldita.es/malditobulo/20210712/casoplon-santiago-abascal-vox-1300000-euros/

No, este documento de Quirónsalud que dice que Salvador Illa dio positivo por COVID-19 el 6 de febrero no es real

https://maldita.es/malditobulo/20210212/illa-positivo-covid-coronavirus-quironsalud-alvise-pcr-psc/

No, el Tribunal de Cuentas no está investigando a Juanma Moreno por corrupción valorada en 1,7 millones de euros

https://maldita.es/malditobulo/20200831/tribunal-cuentas-investigando-juanma-moreno-corrupcion-17-millones-euros/

No, el cartel de Laura Borràs de Junts per Catalunya no ha sido retirado de una farola de Barcelona por el “color político” o por “censura política”

https://maldita.es/malditobulo/20210210/cartel-junts-per-catalunya-barcelona/

No, esta foto de Díaz Ayuso tocando una obra de arte con un cartel de 'No tocar' no es real: es un montaje y el autor invita a tocar la obra

https://maldita.es/malditobulo/20210117/meme-ayuso-no-tocar-arco/

No, no hay pruebas de que Yolanda Díaz viajase a Galicia en Semana Santa

https://maldita.es/malditobulo/20210506/yolanda-diaz-viaje-galicia-semana-santa/

No hay pruebas de que Ángel Gabilondo diese una paliza a un alumno delante de 50 personas en el Colegio Sagrado Corazón de Jesús de la Avenida Alfonso XIII de Madrid "allá por los años 1971 a 1973"

https://maldita.es/malditobulo/20210501/carta-supuesto-exalumno-angel-gabilondo-paliza-colegio/

¿Qué sabemos de los tickets de Correos en los que atribuye 'votos emitidos' a personas que envían un paquete o una carta?

https://maldita.es/malditobulo/20210430/tickets-correos-atribuye-votos-emitidos-paquete-carta/

MALDITO DATO

We verify political claims using the same standards for every piece. We do not concentrate our fact-checking on any one side but do not generate a false balance either: We listen approximately to the same amount of time from each political party and publish only fact-checks which are false or need further context. Here are some examples:

Es falso que en "las primeras semanas" de la primera ola del coronavirus en España se hicieran "una media de 30.000 PCR diarias" como dice Pedro Sánchez

https://maldita.es/malditodato/20201026/falso-primeras-semanas-primera-ola-coronavirus-espana-hiciera-30000-pcr-diarias-dice-pedro-sanchez/

Es falso que el PP haya pedido "a la Junta Electoral que anule" la candidatura de Pablo Iglesias a la presidencia de la Comunidad de Madrid como afirma el propio Iglesias

https://maldita.es/malditodato/20210323/pp-denuncia-junta-electoral-video-iglesias-anular-candidatura-comunidad-madrid/

Es falso que Pedro Sánchez dijera "en un medio italiano que no quería pactar nada con el PP" como dice Pablo Casado

https://maldita.es/malditodato/20200722/pedro-sanchez-reconocio-medio-comunicacion-italia-nunca-planteado-acuerdo-pp-pablo-casado/

Es falso que nadie de Vox haya visto nunca a Steve Bannon como dice Espinosa de los Monteros

https://maldita.es/malditodato/20200915/falso-nadie-vox-visto-nunca-steve-bannon-espinosa-monteros/

Es falso que Ciudadanos no esté "en ningún gobierno" con Vox como dice Inés Arrimadas

https://maldita.es/malditodato/20210211/falso-ciudadanos-ningun-gobierno-vox-arrimadas/

Es falso que la Ley General de Presupuestos del Estado sea una "ley orgánica" como dice Carmen Calvo

https://maldita.es/malditodato/20200901/ley-presupuestos-organica-mayoria-carmen-calvo/

Es falso que Pedro Sánchez dijera que el "70% de la población" estaría vacunada "antes del verano" como dice Teodoro García Egea

https://maldita.es/malditodato/20210720/pedro-sanchez-70-poblacion-vacunada-antes-verano-teodoro-garcia-egea/

Es falso que "el 40% de los contagios de España" por coronavirus "se dan en Madrid" como dice Mónica García

https://maldita.es/malditodato/20210330/40-por-ciento-contagios-coronavirus-madrid-monica-garcia/

Es falso que Santiago Abascal "cerró" la Fundación para el Mecenazgo y el Patrocinio Social "precisamente porque era un chiringuito" como dice Rocío Monasterio

https://maldita.es/malditodato/20210424/rocio-monasterio-vox-abascal-cerro-fundacion-mecenazgo-patrocinio-por-chiringuito/

Es falso que "el índice digital de la Comisión Europea" sitúe a Cataluña "en el TOP 5 de los países más digitales de Europa" como dice el consejero de la Generalitat Jordi Puigneró

https://maldita.es/malditodato/20200721/falso-indice-digital-comision-europea-situe-cataluna-top5-paises-mas-digitales-europa-como-dice-jordi-puignero-generalitat/

MALDITA CIENCIA

Since September 2020, we have implemented a public methodology also in Maldita Ciencia. We verify claims about health and scientific issues using the same standards for every piece. Our work is based on the search and explanation of scientific literature and on the consultation of experts who help us by providing context and information from their respective scientific branches. 

After a thorough review of dozens of fact checks from the applicant, both provided by them and chosen at random, it was observed that they are indeed non-partisan. Claims covered cover the political spectrum. Equivalent claims are analyzed using the same standards. The process is the same, which is based on describing the claim, looking for reliable, official (when applicable), on the record information, and then exposing this clearly to the audience. The use of evidence is serious and guide the conclusions of the checks.

Regardless the topic addressed or the political orientation of the main character of the story, the applicant uses the same fact checking methodology and has an objective approach, using high standards of fact checking based on evidence. This is verifiable both in the selection of fact checks provided by the applicant and a random selection of fact checks. 

Regardless the topic addressed or the political orientation of the main character of the story, the applicant uses the same fact checking methodology and has an objective approach, using high standards of fact checking based on evidence. This is verifiable both in the selection of fact checks provided by the applicant and a random selection of fact checks. 

MALDITO BULO

Our Maldito Bulo methodology is public in this link: https://maldita.es/metodologia-de-maldito-bulo/

We select what we are going to debunk based on two variables:

Virality: It is measured according to reports from our community and virality on social networks, specially WhatsApp, but also includes Twitter, Facebook and Instagram or if it is broadcast by a public figure or on a web page or media with public reach. We will not publish a denial of a hoax that has had practically no impact in order not to amplify it, except in dangerous situations.

Dangerousness: there are hoaxes that appear in particularly delicate crisis situations such as attacks or natural catastrophes, those that affect public health or social coexistence, which we will try to stop from the first moment we detect them.

MALDITO DATO

Our Maldito Dato methodology is public in this link:

https://maldita.es/metodologia-de-maldito-dato/

The Maldito Dato team monitors the statements of Spanish politicians made publicly, that is, through the media, at events or through social networks. We do not concentrate our fact-checking on any one side but do not generate a false balance either: we listen approximately to the same amount of time from each political party and publish only fact-checks which are false or need further context.

The selection of the statements or messages that are verified is carried out through a weighting system that is based on the viralization of the statement itself or on the possible political or social repercussions it may have. We only check figures or statements based on alleged facts or statistics, not opinions.

MALDITA CIENCIA

Our Maldita Ciencia methodology is public in this link: https://www.maldita.es/metodologia-de-maldita-ciencia

The Maldita Ciencia team is focused on the debunk or dissemination of scientific literature and experts that provide context and more information. This methodology is clear on the publication date of our articles, because scientific knowledge can change.

To select the topics to be debunk or explained are selected based on the same criteria applied on the Maldito Bulo methodology: virality and dangerousness.

Due to the specific characteristics of the contents from Maldita Ciencia we also defined 4 categories to indicate the type of content: hoax, no evidence, false affirmations and divulgation.

The edition process will involve three levels: first the journalist, then the section coordinator, and finally a senior editor. In the case of food topics published in our independent section Maldita Alimentación, we also count with an advisor board that ensures our quality and rigor.  

The applicant has three methodologies published in their website: one regarding Maldito Bulo, the general fact-checking initiative, another concerning Maldito Dato, the political verification unit, and one related to Maldita Ciencia, the science fact checking team.

All three follow the same general guidance of choosing claims based on social importance and reach, as well as non-partisanship.

The three sections are thorough and explain choice of claims and methodologies clearly. In Maldito Bulo, Virality and Danger are the two main points driving choice. In Maldito Dato, claims are chosen based on virality and social importance, but only concerning spanish political agents. They have also the general posture of only publishing claims with a False result. Finally, Maldita Ciencia follows the same general orientation for choosing claims, but they responsibly warn that scientific consensus is sometimes difficult to observe, and that science is mutable.

The applicant makes statements on its website about how the claims checked are selected and the fact checking methodology for three types of claims: ''maldito bulto'' - for general fact checking (https://maldita.es/metodologia-de-maldito-bulo/), "maldito dato" - for public declarations of politicians  (https://maldita.es/metodologia-de-maldito-dato/) and "maldita ciencia" - for scientific topics (https://maldita.es/metodologia-de-maldita-ciencia/). 

As explained in the application, the main factors taken into consideration when choosing the claims are virality and situated dangerousness (the impact of a claim in a certain social, economical and political context). 

Compared to the fact checks selected by the applicant or random fact checks, these criteria are being respected and the selection of claims is indeed done according to their reach and importance. 

The applicant makes statements on its website about how the claims checked are selected and the fact checking methodology for three types of claims: ''maldito bulto'' - for general fact checking (https://maldita.es/metodologia-de-maldito-bulo/), "maldito dato" - for public declarations of politicians  (https://maldita.es/metodologia-de-maldito-dato/) and "maldita ciencia" - for scientific topics (https://maldita.es/metodologia-de-maldita-ciencia/). 

As explained in the application, the main factors taken into consideration when choosing the claims are virality and situated dangerousness (the impact of a claim in a certain social, economical and political context). 

Compared to the fact checks selected by the applicant or random fact checks, these criteria are being respected and the selection of claims is indeed done according to their reach and importance. 

No additional information required. 

The applicant is transparent on the nature of the sources used to verify a claim, so the reader can be mindful of their nature. This can be seen in this check: https://maldita.es/malditodato/20210323/pp-denuncia-junta-electoral-video-iglesias-anular-candidatura-comunidad-madrid/

Besides, the applicant putz sources in context, in order to better understand the issues at play.

The reader can easily identify the sources used for the fact check and draw his own conclusions regarding any interests that might influence the conclusion of the fact check. 

The reader can easily identify the sources used for the fact check and draw his own conclusions regarding any interests that might influence the conclusion of the fact check. 

No additional information required. 

The applicant is balanced and does not show support for any political party or position. They do influence the debate in terms of fighting misinformation, which work is detailed here https://maldita.es/politicas-publicas-desarrollo-institucional. Their work on fact checking reflects their independence

The applicant makes proof of objectivity even during political campaign for general elections. Their social media activity also supports this argument, addressing diverse topics of public interest, using the same standards of quality and the same fact checking methodology. 

The applicant makes proof of objectivity even during political campaign for general elections. Their social media activity also supports this argument, addressing diverse topics of public interest, using the same standards of quality and the same fact checking methodology. 

We have a public neutrality policy that applies to the whole organization and can be checked here: https://maldita.es/politica-de-neutralidad

"At Maldita.es we believe that the neutrality and non-partisanship of the journalistic contents that we carry out is essential to maintain our credibility and the trust of our community.

Therefore, although members of our team can participate in social and political events individually, they will never do so in the name of Maldita.es.

We understand that, as members of civil society, team members can take sides on political issues as long as they do so on their behalf and not on behalf of the organization. In addition, if a member of the team accepts some type of position within a political party that would mean their immediate disengagement from the project.

In the same way, if there is a conflict of interest between a member of the team and a journalistic issue, that member would be separated from the management of that specific topic to protect the honesty and credibility of the contents of Maldita.es.”  

The applicant displays a Neutrality Policy both for the outlet and their staff. However, when it pertains to their staff, the policy does allow for their journalists to participate in protests or voice their political positions publicly, so long as they do so on their behalf, and not on the applicant's. The policy also states that individuals that have a conflict of interest with a journalistic issue are removed from the coverage.

A review of a random set of social media feeds from the team demonstrated that journalists do tend to refrain from political positions on social media.

The policy of neutrality if disclosed on the applicant's website: https://maldita.es/politica-de-neutralidad/

The applicant has a clear position regarding personal opinions of its staff and the need to remain non-partisan in their journalistic endeavor. This statement is also supported by the code of ethics of the organization. 

A review of the social media profiles of the main figures of the organization also show that the team members don't have public positions supporting certain politicians. 

The policy of neutrality if disclosed on the applicant's website: https://maldita.es/politica-de-neutralidad/

The applicant has a clear position regarding personal opinions of its staff and the need to remain non-partisan in their journalistic endeavor. This statement is also supported by the code of ethics of the organization. 

A review of the social media profiles of the main figures of the organization also show that the team members don't have public positions supporting certain politicians. 

No additional information required. 

The applicant consistently identifies sources used in checks, using links whenever applicable. Sources may be documents, interviews with experts/government officials, or tools for checking digital information, but they are all named and linked to whenever possible.

The applicant discloses all relevant sources of information so that the reader can check himself the sources and the objectivity of the fact-check. Most of the sources are primary ones and they can be accessed digitally. 

The applicant discloses all relevant sources of information so that the reader can check himself the sources and the objectivity of the fact-check. Most of the sources are primary ones and they can be accessed digitally. 

No additional information required. 

The applicant usually employs first-hand sources. This means official documents, on the record quotes from officials and the opinion of experts. The persons involved in the claims are usually contacted. All sources are identified,  explained and linked to. The applicant is thorough in their use of sources.

In the randomised selection analyzed for the current assessment, the applicant uses mostly primary sources such as declarations, interviews, official documents, public data, photos or research papers. The primary sources used are usually the most relevant ones for the claim addressed. 

In the randomised selection analyzed for the current assessment, the applicant uses mostly primary sources such as declarations, interviews, official documents, public data, photos or research papers. The primary sources used are usually the most relevant ones for the claim addressed. 

No additional information required. 

When verifying a claim, the applicant usually employs more than one source, in order to check different parts of a claim. The sources are well identified and contextualized, as well as varied and balanced.

One example can be found in this check, where they combine different sources to construct the coverage: https://maldita.es/malditobulo/20210219/supuesta-frase-pablo-iglesias-hasel/, and also in this one: https://maldita.es/malditobulo/20210707/aerolineas-espana-rusia-recomendar-vacunados-covid-19-riesgo-trombos-vuelo/

Whenever possible and applicable, all the claims assessed are compared to more than one source consisting in declarations of all the involved parties, official documents, credible experts, verified photos, etc. 

Whenever possible and applicable, all the claims assessed are compared to more than one source consisting in declarations of all the involved parties, official documents, credible experts, verified photos, etc. 

No additional information required. 

This is not a common circumstance, but the applicant contextualizes sources and makes it clear when they have interests that may be relevant to the reader.

The sources are clearly contextualized so there is no risk of inducing the reader into error concerning the neutrality of the conclusions drawn. 

The sources are clearly contextualized so there is no risk of inducing the reader into error concerning the neutrality of the conclusions drawn. 

Maldita.es is an independent organization set up as a non profit association and a non profit foundation.

This are the association bylaws: 

https://es.scribd.com/document/456561523/Estatutos-Asociacion-Maldita?secret_password=bp7WTxz558QDs4w9AV7z

This are the foundation bylaws:

https://es.scribd.com/document/456562725/ESTATUTOS-FUNDACIO-N-MALDITA-ES  

The applicant has two different legal entities: a foundation and an association. Both are regularly registered and relevant documents are displayed in their website. As for their sources of funding, they are clearly displayed in the section Accounts - https://maldita.es/malditas-cuentas-de-donde-vienen-donde-van-nuestros-ingresos, with explanations and data from 2018 up to mid 2021.

The applicant is represented by two legal entities, a foundation and an NGO, as it is clearly disclosed on the applicant's website: https://maldita.es/transparencia-organizacion/. 

All the sources of income, including those accounting for less that 5% of the total revenue are published and explained on their website: https://maldita.es/malditas-cuentas-de-donde-vienen-donde-van-nuestros-ingresos/

The applicant is represented by two legal entities, a foundation and an NGO, as it is clearly disclosed on the applicant's website: https://maldita.es/transparencia-organizacion/. 

All the sources of income, including those accounting for less that 5% of the total revenue are published and explained on their website: https://maldita.es/malditas-cuentas-de-donde-vienen-donde-van-nuestros-ingresos/

At Maldita.es we believe that transparency is essential, that is why every year we make our income and expense accounts public together with our yearly budget and every six months we update the current expenses and incomes. We also publish our bylaws. You can find everything here https://maldita.es/malditas-cuentas-de-donde-vienen-donde-van-nuestros-ingresos/ 

Legal status of the both legal entities are provided, as well as full registration of the sources of revenue, with their amounts and nature.

The applicant is an independent organization. 

The applicant is an independent organization. 

In this link, permanently updated, we make our values and missions public, along with the profile and position of each of the members of the Maldita.es team: https://maldita.es/quienes-somos/   

The applicant displays information about their team on a dedicated section of their webpage. All the team is displayed with headshots and function. Organizational structure is clear, as well as the persons who exercise editorial control.

The structure of the two legal entities are transparently presented on the applicant's website: https://maldita.es/transparencia-organizacion/. It is clearly explained who is part of the editorial and organizational structure.

The structure of the two legal entities are transparently presented on the applicant's website: https://maldita.es/transparencia-organizacion/. It is clearly explained who is part of the editorial and organizational structure.

Although all the team’s biographies are updated on the previous link, we also set up a separate page linked on our methodologies explaining who are the editors that can vote fact-checks here: https://maldita.es/quienes-editores-con-voto-segun-la-metodologia-de-maldito-bulo  

The professional biographies of the professionals are displayed in two different parts. On the Team page, one can find names, bios, pictures, Twitter handles and responsibilities. Besides that, the seven members of the team who have a vote on the decisions of the results of a fact check have their bios displayed on a separate page, linked in the Methods section.

The professional biographies of all the team members that play a role in the editorial output of the applicant are disclosed on the applicant's website: https://maldita.es/quienes-editores-con-voto-segun-la-metodologia-de-maldito-bulo/, https://maldita.es/quienes-somos. 

The professional biographies of all the team members that play a role in the editorial output of the applicant are disclosed on the applicant's website: https://maldita.es/quienes-editores-con-voto-segun-la-metodologia-de-maldito-bulo/, https://maldita.es/quienes-somos. 

All our strategy as an organization is related to talking back and forth with our audience. They can reach out to us on social media (where all our messages are open and accessible); they can write to us through our WhatsApp chatbot; they can send us direct e-mails (which are listed within the methodology but also at the bottom of the webpage); they can write to us on our App and they can also reach out through our plug-in. In addition, users are invited to send their fact-checking proposals through a specific section called La Buloteca in which they can work together with us in the debunking process: https://maldita.es/buloteca  

The applicant provides a few ways for the audience to get in touch with them. Twitter handles are available and linked to in the Methods section. They also have a WhatsApp bot where people can send claims to be checked. Finally, all social media links are displayed on the bottom of the page.

When a check was based on a request by WhatsApp, this is acknowledged upfront, as can be seem in the following example: https://maldita.es/malditobulo/20210410/pablo-iglesias-120000-ano-cargo-vicepresidente-indemnizacion-millonaria-boe-cese/

Although the section mentioned in the application, La Buloteca, does not exist anymore, the applicant disposes of several communication channels through which the audience can get in contact with the editorial team. For instance, the applicant is reachable through WhatsApp and on all the social media platforms where it is present (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Telegram, Tik Tok, Youtube and LinkedIn). Moreover, the applicant has developed its own app through which the users can report suspect claims. 

As a suggestion, it would be useful for the applicant t have a dedicated section on their website where they explain all the communications means accessible to the users and which is the methodology used to address the claims sent by the users. 

Although the section mentioned in the application, La Buloteca, does not exist anymore, the applicant disposes of several communication channels through which the audience can get in contact with the editorial team. For instance, the applicant is reachable through WhatsApp and on all the social media platforms where it is present (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Telegram, Tik Tok, Youtube and LinkedIn). Moreover, the applicant has developed its own app through which the users can report suspect claims. 

As a suggestion, it would be useful for the applicant t have a dedicated section on their website where they explain all the communications means accessible to the users and which is the methodology used to address the claims sent by the users. 

Maldito Bulo's methodology: https://maldita.es/metodologia-de-maldito-bulo/

Maldito Dato's methodology: https://maldita.es/metodologia-de-maldito-dato/

Maldita Ciencia’s methodology: https://www.maldita.es/metodologia-de-maldita-ciencia  

Currently, the applicant has three methodology sections published. One is related to Maldito Bulo, the main fact checking team. Another is related to Maldito Dato, the political verification unit. Finally, the methods section of Maldita Ciencia concerns specifically the methodology of the Science fact checking team, assuming that science has specific worries and dynamics that grant it a separate team. However, all three methodologies are clear, transparent, and follow the same basic principles of social reach, basic evidence and journalistic judgment.

The applicant publishes three types of fact checks: "maldito bulo", "maldito dato" and "maldita ciencia". Each type of fact check has its own methodology published on the website. 

Although the methodologies are clearly explained, we would suggest making a better distinction between "maldito bulo" and "maldito dato" since both sections often address political claims. 

The applicant publishes three types of fact checks: "maldito bulo", "maldito dato" and "maldita ciencia". Each type of fact check has its own methodology published on the website. 

Although the methodologies are clearly explained, we would suggest making a better distinction between "maldito bulo" and "maldito dato" since both sections often address political claims. 

No additional information required. 

The claims checked and the topics covered by the applicant are chosen on the bases of social importance and virality. According to a review of randomized content, this aspect is respected in the published checks. The applicant contextualizes the claim, and, in the cases where virality is involved, this is explained to the reader.

According to the methodologies of the applicant, the selection of the claims to be checked is made according to the level of reach and importance and this is also confirmed by the fact checks we assessed. The applicant selects, verifies and publishes mostly fact checks that address claims that have a high degree of importance at a political and social level. 

According to the methodologies of the applicant, the selection of the claims to be checked is made according to the level of reach and importance and this is also confirmed by the fact checks we assessed. The applicant selects, verifies and publishes mostly fact checks that address claims that have a high degree of importance at a political and social level. 

No additional information required. 

The applicant uses evidence in a serious, responsible way. They also consistently use evidence both to confirm and to undermine claims. Usually, the applicant applies evidence until the truth around a certain topic can be certain beyond doubt.

Two examples of this posture can be found in the following links: https://maldita.es/malditobulo/20210410/pablo-iglesias-120000-ano-cargo-vicepresidente-indemnizacion-millonaria-boe-cese/ / https://maldita.es/malditodato/20210330/40-por-ciento-contagios-coronavirus-madrid-monica-garcia/

Whenever applicable, the applicant discloses both evidence that support and undermine the claim. For instance, this can be clearly verified in this article: https://maldita.es/malditobulo/20230710/vox-valladolid-acto-campana-imagen-manipulada-elecciones/.

Whenever applicable, the applicant discloses both evidence that support and undermine the claim. For instance, this can be clearly verified in this article: https://maldita.es/malditobulo/20230710/vox-valladolid-acto-campana-imagen-manipulada-elecciones/.

No additional information required. 

According to a review of randomized checks, the applicant applies the same standards when analyzing equivalent claims (although those are not always visible). The methodologys is applied evenly when checking all the Spanish political spectrum. One example of this balance application of equivalent standards can be found in this link: https://maldita.es/malditodato/20210323/pp-denuncia-junta-electoral-video-iglesias-anular-candidatura-comunidad-madrid/

The applicant uses the same standards regarding evidence and neutrality regardless of who made the claim. This is specifically evident in the case of fact checks that address claims or messages of political persons or parties that are normally undermined because they usually disseminate disinformation, as it is the case of VOX, the far-right Spanish political party: https://maldita.es/malditobulo/20230710/vox-valladolid-acto-campana-imagen-manipulada-elecciones/ , https://maldita.es/malditobulo/20230718/no-santiago-abascal-no-ha-dicho-que-llenaran-las-cunetas-de-independentistas-en-el-acto-de-vistalegre/ .

The applicant uses the same standards regarding evidence and neutrality regardless of who made the claim. This is specifically evident in the case of fact checks that address claims or messages of political persons or parties that are normally undermined because they usually disseminate disinformation, as it is the case of VOX, the far-right Spanish political party: https://maldita.es/malditobulo/20230710/vox-valladolid-acto-campana-imagen-manipulada-elecciones/ , https://maldita.es/malditobulo/20230718/no-santiago-abascal-no-ha-dicho-que-llenaran-las-cunetas-de-independentistas-en-el-acto-de-vistalegre/ .

No additional information required. 

The applicant usually contacts the persons who made a claim in order to bring more context to it. However, a lot of the claims covered by the applicant are online rumours, which render this type of policy impossible. One example where this contact was attempted can be found here: https://maldita.es/malditodato/20210323/pp-denuncia-junta-electoral-video-iglesias-anular-candidatura-comunidad-madrid/

Also, when a claim references a given public actor, said actor is contacted for further investigation (an example can be found here: https://maldita.es/malditobulo/20210506/yolanda-diaz-viaje-galicia-semana-santa/ or here https://maldita.es/malditobulo/20210501/carta-supuesto-exalumno-angel-gabilondo-paliza-colegio/)

Whenever possible, the applicant contacts the persons who made the claims addressed by the fact checks and discloses the declarations. If there are other parties directly concerned, they are also contacted when possible. 

Whenever possible, the applicant contacts the persons who made the claims addressed by the fact checks and discloses the declarations. If there are other parties directly concerned, they are also contacted when possible. 

We permanently campaign on social networks and through television and radio programs where we collaborate by providing our users with our WhatsApp Chatbot number and all our social media accounts: https://twitter.com/malditobulo/status/1305954645710442496?s=20

On this number we receive an average of 1000 queries sent by users everyday.

In addition we have our community of members (whom we call "Maldit@s") who bring their talents and experience to help us deny information. This community of more than 48,000 users receives constant communications through newsletters and messages that allow them to be part of our verification process: https://comunidad.maldita.es 

The applicant has built a WhatsApp bot to receive claims to be checked. This is highlighted in their Cover page, as well as in the side of some stories.

Also, stories that have been suggested through WhatsApp are highlighted as such in the first paragraph.

They also have a Twitter profile to encourage people to send claims, available at https://twitter.com/labuloteca

Finally, members are encouraged to send claims.

The methods page states that only checkable claims are analyzed, discarding opinions.

The users are encouraged to send claims to check especially by the WhatsApp chatbot and the mobile app developed by the applicant. Nonetheless, there is no specific section on their website presenting the means through which the users can send claims and the methodology used to select which of their claims will be addressed. It can be deduced from the general methodologies used and disclosed by the applicant, but we consider it would be useful to make it clearer for the user.

The users are encouraged to send claims to check especially by the WhatsApp chatbot and the mobile app developed by the applicant. Nonetheless, there is no specific section on their website presenting the means through which the users can send claims and the methodology used to select which of their claims will be addressed. It can be deduced from the general methodologies used and disclosed by the applicant, but we consider it would be useful to make it clearer for the user.

Our readers can reach us to correct information we have published. When that happens the editors who have a methodological vote revise the claim and how the fact-check has been done and if they conclude that the fact-check is subject to a correction it will be done following our public corrections policy as described on our website: https://maldita.es/politica-de-rectificacion/

The applicant has a link in their About section to a clear, comprehensive corrections policy.

The applicant discloses and explains clearly what is the correction policy. The last update of the correction policy was made on May 18, 2023: https://maldita.es/politica-de-rectificacion/ 

The applicant discloses and explains clearly what is the correction policy. The last update of the correction policy was made on May 18, 2023: https://maldita.es/politica-de-rectificacion/ 

No additional information required. 

The policy is clear. It sets what is covered and what is not, how corrections are handled both in website and in social networks, what different corrections are made, and what qualifies for correction. Readers are also encouraged to send corrections via email. Finally, examples are provided along the policy to highlight how it is applied. Thus, the corrections policy is clear, responsible, cohesive and effective.

The correction policy defines clearly that any mistake regarding the fact checking process and the conclusions is being transparently disclosed. The corrected articles can easily found on the applicant's website by searching "CORRECCIÓN" through the search bar of the website. The users are also encouraged to signal errors, but it is also clearly set out the conditions to make corrections. 

The correction policy defines clearly that any mistake regarding the fact checking process and the conclusions is being transparently disclosed. The corrected articles can easily found on the applicant's website by searching "CORRECCIÓN" through the search bar of the website. The users are also encouraged to signal errors, but it is also clearly set out the conditions to make corrections. 

At Maldita.es we believe that if we make mistakes we have to rectify them. We promise to be transparent when correcting our own mistakes and to do so on our web page and on our social networks. If the errors affect the meaning of the verification, the word CORRECTION will go in the headline when it comes to rectifying.

Sometimes we add information to an article, change something or qualify a phrase that we think is not being well understood. Whenever we do, we mark it with an asterisk and explain at the end of the article what has changed and why it has.

We also keep a date track when articles are modified. We maintain a first publishing date at the bottom of every article and the actualization date at the top of the article.

Between july 2020 and august 2021 these are the corrections we have done which are accessible on our website:

CORRECCIÓN: Pedro Duque no se ha reunido con su comité de científicos sobre el coronavirus desde mayo hasta el 7 de octubre aunque los expertos sí mantienen contactos informales entre ellos * https://maldita.es/malditodato/20201010/pedro-duque-no-reune-con-comite-cientificos-coronavirus-desde-mayo-expertos/

CORRECCIÓN: ¿Qué sabemos sobre los 522€ al mes que recibirá un “inmigrante ilegal” por empadronarse en Aragón con la Prestación Aragonesa Complementaria del Ingreso Mínimo Vital?* https://maldita.es/malditobulo/20210525/inmigrante-ilegal-522-aragon-empadronarse/   

The applicant has produced two links that have been corrected between July 2020 and August 2021. Both are also displayed in the Corrections policy as examples.

In both cases, the title has been changed in order to better accomodate changes in the topic covered. The changes are explained in a footnote that displays the previous text and the modified one. Both corrections are clear.

Three corrections have been made by the applicant between June 2021 and May 2023 and they are disclosed in the Correction policy section: https://maldita.es/politica-de-rectificacion/

The corrected articles are signaled from the title and the reader can easily identify both the correction and the corrected part of the fact check. 

Three corrections have been made by the applicant between June 2021 and May 2023 and they are disclosed in the Correction policy section: https://maldita.es/politica-de-rectificacion/

The corrected articles are signaled from the title and the reader can easily identify both the correction and the corrected part of the fact check. 

The IFCN signatory stamp is in a relevant place in our page, currently on the footer of the webpage. The stamp redirects to this link where users get information about the Maldita being signatory of the IFCN code of principles an a link to the IFCN complaints form: https://maldita.es/maldita-es-firmante-del-codigo-de-principios-del-international-fact-checking-network/   

The IFCN stamp is available on the footer of the page. It links to an internal page explaining what the IFCN is, and its relation with the applicant. The reader can also find a link to the complaints page and to the Code of Principles.

The applicant invites users to inform IFCN if they consider that the IFCN code has been violated in the correction policy section and directly through a link: https://maldita.es/politica-de-rectificacion/ 

The applicant invites users to inform IFCN if they consider that the IFCN code has been violated in the correction policy section and directly through a link: https://maldita.es/politica-de-rectificacion/ 

Doesn't apply.

Not applicable, since it's an independent company.

Not applicable. 

Not applicable.