The information about our organization's legal status is included on our "About Us" page http://southasiacheck.org/about/ We have also included the latest renewal letter of our organization from the government.

The applicant's "About Us" page describes the organization as "independent, non-partisan, non-profit initiative." It has also attached a document from Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Government of Nepal. The document shows that Panos South Asia, the applicant's parent organization, remains in valid legal status. 

1. South Asia Check was launched in July 2015 as a completely new concept in Nepal. We felt the need for the initiative because Nepal was in the process of writing a new constitution and there was lots of misinformation going around in the media especially the politicians were responsible for such misinformation. 

2 and 3. The "About Us" page provides the details http://southasiacheck.org/about/

4. Over the last year, we have tackled misinformation especially that spread through social media platforms around breaking news events involving accidents and natural disasters. Misinformation around Covid-19 pandemic was also one of our key areas. While we will continue to fact-check these issues, for the next year, our goal is to focus on emerging platforms such as TikTok. We will publish more explainers to provide accurate information to the public on issues that matter to them. 

The contents and topics covered by South Asia Check on its website focus on fact-checking. The applicant is a pioneering fact-checking organization in Nepal.

During the past one year, between January 1, 2021 and today, November 25, 2021, we have published a total of 27 fact-check reports. In cases where we haven't been able to publish fact-checks due to lack of evidence, we have covered them as explainers. When Nepal's social media users shared photos of a herb in May claiming it was a medicine for Covid-19, we published an explainer http://southasiacheck.org/in-public-interest/read-this-before-opting-for-alternative-remedies-for-covid-19/   We also published an explainer about risk of Covid death for fully vaccinated people (in Nepali) http://southasiacheck.org/np/?p=7807  We also reported about coronagaurd, marketed in Nepal as a device that could kill coronavirus in enclosed spaces (in Nepali) http://southasiacheck.org/np/?p=7549

The archives of the applicant's website shows that over the course of six months prior to the date of application (Nov 2, 2021), the applicant published 16 fact-checks in both English and Nepali languages, 6 posts (5 in Nepali and 1 in English) under "In Public Interest", and 2 posts (both in English and Nepali) under "Media" (reports on anonymous sourcing practices), and 1 post in Nepali under "Promise Tracker", among others. Although the applicant published fewer than the required minimum number (24) of fact-checks for the period, the other posts under different categories, which involved verification of fact or tracking some aspects of public-interest issues, do help to make up for the fewer number of fact-checks per se.

This assessor's analysis of published fact-checks over the past three months shows that the applicant has, overall, complied with the IFCN code of principle emphasizing public welfare or well-being. For instance, fact-checks and other related posts during this period involved verifying disinformation concerning floods in the country, COVID-19-related rumors, contextually erroneous viral photos of the former king and queen, a former prime minister's factually inaccurate and insensitive characterization of a certain tribe from Africa, and a false claim (dismissing the legal obligation to hold party general convention) by a joint-general secretary of a major political party, among others. These posts have implications for public interest by way of holding powers to account.

South Asia Check and its parent organisation Panos South Asia do not have any commercial, financial and/or institutional relationship to the state, politicians or political parties. We have not received any funding or support from foreign as well as local state or political actors. 

As disclosed in its website, the applicant is politically independent, and it doesn't receive funding from state or political actors -- foreign or local. It appears compliant with this criterion.

While we don't receive funding from local or foreign state or political sources, we have received funding from US-based organisations including National Endowment for Democracy and Open Society Foundation. Please go to our About Us page and click on the tab Funders, where we have presented details on the funding. 

The applicant has identified its funders here http://southasiacheck.org/about/ and they include non-state actors generally considered to be politically non-partisan. Based on this disclosure, it can be said that the organization does not receive funding from local or foreign state or political sources.

1. http://southasiacheck.org/fact-check/pm-oli-made-some-misleading-claims-in-upper-house/

2. http://southasiacheck.org/fact-check/writer-wagle-grossly-misquoted-in-viral-meme/

3. http://southasiacheck.org/fact-check/shashank-koirala-significantly-understates-nepals-arable-land-area/

4. http://southasiacheck.org/fact-check/tiktok-user-trimmed-video-to-show-dahal-in-a-bad-light/

5. http://southasiacheck.org/fact-check/oli-wrongly-refers-to-little-people-of-africa-as-lilliput/

6. http://southasiacheck.org/fact-check/birtamod-mayors-misleading-remedies-for-covid-19-and-false-claims-fact-checked/

7. http://southasiacheck.org/fact-check/political-commentator-falsely-claims-nepal-postage-stamp-issued-in-1958-had-a-pointy-map/

8. http://southasiacheck.org/fact-check/leftist-politician-falsely-claims-former-oli-government-couldnt-bring-covid-19-vaccine/

9. http://southasiacheck.org/fact-check/congress-leader-mahat-wrongly-claims-parties-have-only-moral-obligation-but-no-legal-compulsion-to-hold-general-convention-on-time/

10. http://southasiacheck.org/fact-check/old-photos-of-former-king-and-queen-circulating-with-false-claims/

We rely on primary sources (both publicly available documents and human sources) to verify and fact-check claims. The primary sources range from statements from top government officials, digital outlets and newspapers, lawmakers of opposition parties and social media platforms. We apply same standards and rigor to each fact-check. We don't rate our fact-checks, but make sure that we give a verdict such as false, misleading or baseless at the end of our report. 

All the reports including the fact-check reports published on our website are prepared by team members, who strictly abide by our code of conduct (http://southasiacheck.org/about/) and follow all the necessary process to demonstrate our non-partisanship. 

The applicant appears uniform in its standards for its use of evidence regardless of who made the claim. Many of the fact-checks by the applicant involved checking multiple sources, mostly online (and occasionally, offline, too). Fact-checks concerned misleading photos or video clips, misleading remarks or false claims by social media users, public officials or political leaders on certain public interest or socially or politically sensitive topics, including the COVID-19 pandemic and related health or safety issues.

Please go to https://southasiacheck.org/about/ and click the tabs "What to fact-check and what not to fact-check" and "Code of conduct for Fact-checking team."

The applicant has explained its process of selecting claims to check (See "About Us" page, under the tabs "What to fact-check and what not to fact-check" and "Code of conduct for Fact-checking team"). An assessment of its fact-checks in the last six months shows that the applicant does not unduly concentrate its fact-checking on any one side.

Generally, the applicant identified the sources, which, sometimes, helped to imply certain interests. Examples of identifiers included: ‘a British newspaper,’ ‘one of the leading Indian newspapers,’ ‘a news website,’ ‘a former secretary at the …, who has more than … followers on Facebook,’ ‘state-owned,’ ‘A Facebook page titled ‘…,’ which has been liked by … users,’ ‘a state entity,’ ‘the president of …, an Indian business conglomerate,’ ‘a journal published by…,’ ‘an Indian business conglomerate,’ ‘a senior telecommunications engineer at …,’ ‘the owner of …,’ ‘a resident doctor at Kathmandu-based…’ Some of these examples hinted at governmental or commercial interests. However, most of the sources the applicant cited in terms of the claims it checked included social media users, simply identified as ‘a Facebook page titled,’ ‘a Twitter user with the handle….’ ‘a TikTok user @.....’ ‘a YouTube video,’ etc., often hyperlinked to the respective accounts. In citing individual news websites, the applicant could have defined their political or commercial interests more specifically.

The applicant has done fact-checks for misleading or false claims on a variety of topical issues reflecting different sides of the political continuum, issues as they emerged in news or social media platforms and issues that potentially had implications for public debate. As far as I can tell, the posts reflected no pattern of politically partisan or ideological slants or leanings.

Please go to http://southasiacheck.org/about/ and click the tab "Code of conduct for Fact-checking team."

The applicant has a statement clarifying its non-partisanship. Its code of conduct bars staff from being members of political parties and political party-affiliated bodies or professional unions. Part of the code reads: "All care must be taken to avoid being seen as prejudiced, biased or carrying an agenda to defame or harm or discriminate against a person or organization."

Primary sources were a regular feature in most of the fact checks done by the applicant. Most primary sources cited included texts, photograph, or video clips involving original claims, such as social media posts on Facebook, Twitter, TikTok, YouTube (official accounts, when available) and sometimes articles in news websites or newspapers online. Original documents or texts such as the Constitution, pages from a book (“Nepal Postage Stamp Catalogue 1881-2015”) were also used. Secondary sources mostly included newspaper articles, news wire services, broadcast outlets, academic journals, online encyclopedia, etc. Fact checks generally traced the original evidence, often supplemented by multiple secondary sources.

Most claims were checked against more than one named source of evidence, assessing the veracity of the fact as well as explaining the context of the fact. 

Compliant, as in criteria 2.3.

South Asia Check is a unit of parent organization Panos South Asia. On the top right corner of our website, we have mentioned that it is an initiative of Panos South Asia http://southasiacheck.org

Compliant. The applicant has a page detailing the sources of funding during the past several years. It identifies its parent organization, Panos South Asia, as “a non-profit media development organization."

The applicant complies with this criteria. Its tagline, "An Initiative of Panos South Asia", which is placed on the top-right corner of the website, clearly identifies its parent organization. 

Please go to http://southasiacheck.org/about/ and click the tab "Our team."

The applicant complies with this criteria. Its "About Us" page, under "Our Team" tab, specifies the editorial structure and staff roles. 

The applicant complies with this criteria.

Please click a "Contact us" tab on the horizontal bar just below the South Asia Check logo on the main page http://southasiacheck.org

The applicant complies with this criteria.

Please go to the "About us" http://southasiacheck.org/ on the main page and click the tab "What to fact-check and what not to fact-check."

As published on its "About Us" page (under a separate tab), the applicant has a three-step methodology: verifying sources, assessing veracity of a claims/statements against evidences, and, finally, drafting, reviewing and finalizing of the report. It also encourages users' participation in the process. 

Most claims the applicant checked included viral textual or visual posts that had the potential to misinform/disinform people on matters of public interest and well-being, particularly relating to health/pandemic situation, and to politically sensitive territorial issues. Generally, the applicant did not explain the reason for choosing the claim to check. However, they often offered a background to a claim, described the context, and cited the potential impact of disinformation, thus implying the reason for choosing the claim to check. Some examples of information used to set the context included: “Claim made in the context of the immediate past government issuing a new map of Nepal last year by including Kalapani,” “devastating Melamchi floods,” “in the wake of a government decision to export sand, stones,” etc.

My assessment of a randomized sample of fact checks showed that the applicant has consistently used relevant evidences.

The applicant appears compliant with this criteria, as with criteria 2.1 above. Some fact checks in the past six months, particularly on COVID-19 alternative remedies, involved taking into consideration the range of evidence in support of or against a claim. For example, the applicant reported that their research found no evidence that the so-called home remedy helps to increase the blood oxygen level, although they said camphor, cloves, carom seeds, etc. offer respiratory advantages.

In a case involving a photograph, the applicant contacted the photographer who took the said picture. At least five other fact checks (mostly involving cases of COVID-19 disinformation) in the past six months included first-hand interviews by the applicant with relevant sources and experts to help further clarify facts.

We have a "Request a Fact Check" section on the main page of http://southasiacheck.org/. Users need to click "Suggest us a fact-check" button and submit their requests. Also, the "About us" section has a tab "What to fact-check and what not to fact-check?" which details what readers/users should expect of us. 

We also occasionally ask users to send us request for fact-check. We receive request to fact-check via social media platforms Twitter and Facebook. 

Please go to our "About us" section (http://southasiacheck.org/about/) which contains a "Corrections policy" tab explaining how we make corrections. 

The applicant complies with this criteria. 

The applicant has a clearly stated correction policy. It corrects factual errors, prominently highlighting the correction in the beginning of the article, by updating the post. It has the policy of refraining from fact-checking opinions or value judgments as well as claims that cannot be verified due to lack of publicly available documents.

No correction request was received over the past year. 

The applicant's website (see "About Us" page) specifies its correction policy. However, no correction requests were made in the past year, as reported by the applicant, and no instances of corrections were posted regarding fact-checks during the period.

At the bottom of our main page, we have provided links so that users can make complaints if we violate the IFCN Code. 

The applicant complies with this criteria. 

We are not a fact-checking unit of a media company. So, this doesn't apply to us. 

The applicant complies with this criteria.