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

Both the English- and Nepali-language "About" pages of South Asia Check, at the outset, identify Panos South Asia as the parent organization. No specific reference is made to "legal registration". However, the registration document from the government of Nepal (attached for this assessment) corroborates the published information on its 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 and especially the politicians were responsible for such misinformation.

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

4. Following the outbreak of coronavirus, we too have been inundated with requests for fact check. Over the last couple of months, we have fact-checked or verified several claims related to the Covid-19. As the pandemic is likely to be the issue of concern for several months until a remedy is found, we will continue to combat misinformation on the disease. So over the coming year, we will try to build on this and continue to fact check health related claims and news. Our goal is also to expand the scope of fact check to include social media and digital platforms such as YouTube. One of our goals is to publish more explainers, which we started early this year. We can not debunk every rumor and false claims, but we work proactively to bridge the knowledge gaps. Our explainers on various aspects of coronavirus and other issues help people understand the matter, which in turn helps fight false information. 

The core task of the applicant is fact-checking and this objective is specified on the "About" page. 

We've fallen short of required number of fact-checks as we could only publish eight due to various factors. But where we lack fact-checks, we have compensated it by publishing accurate facts early and routinely after talking to experts and authorities. For example, early when Nepal had only one case of Covid-19, we published a report under the headline 10 Things to Know About Coronavirus (in Nepali) https://southasiacheck.org/np/?p=5273 We also published an explainer about testing, tracking and treatment in Nepal after cases grew (also in Nepali) https://southasiacheck.org/np/?p=5412 This helped people make themselves aware of facts and become less vulnerable to hoaxes. We also published an explainer on the race to develop vaccines and drugs to treat Covid-19 https://southasiacheck.org/in-public-interest/scientists-worldwide-in-desperate-search-for-covid-19-drug/

We closely followed social media discourse in Nepal and the trajectory of the disease to deliver our reports, which were widely published in digital outlets of the country. 

During the last three months (18 February to 18 April 2020), prior to the application date, the South Asia Check published 3 fact-check articles:  

25 March 2020: http://southasiacheck.org/fact-check/covid-19-there-is-no-medicine-yet-dont-get-misled-by-misinformation/

20 March 2020: http://southasiacheck.org/fact-check/covid-19-whats-circulating-on-social-media-and-what-are-the-facts/ 

24 February 2020: http://southasiacheck.org/fact-check/binod-chaudhary-falsely-claims-internet-in-nepal-is-south-asias-priciest/ 

Based specifically on the required number of fact-check articles for the specified period, the applicant does not meet this criterion.

However, as this page shows (http://southasiacheck.org/category/fact-check/), South Asia Check has done a total of 7 fact-check articles during the past month, since the application date. The latest piece was published on 23 May 2020. In addition, during the past six months, it has published some explainers that touch upon aspects of transparency and accountability in public life. These works may help compensate for the gaps in the past few months. The IFCN may like to take these additional works into consideration to qualitatively assess compliance with this particular criterion.

All three fact-checks published in the 3 months (prior to the application date) focused clearly on public interest topics.Two of those fact checks concerned misinformation on the precautions/cure for the new coronavirus and one on misleading information on internet service prices.   

South Asia Check and its parent organization 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. 

The "About" page identifies the applicant as "an independent, non-partisan, non-profit initiative". The applicant also has a disclosure on its sources of funding-- Open Society Foundation and National Endowment for Democracy, both US-based organizations. 

The applicant's "Code and Conduct for Fact-checking Team" clearly spells out its ethical standards on issues of partisanship and bias.The applicant doesn't offer details on how, in practice, the organization ensures the editorial independence of its works. 

Generally, editorial practices in Nepal's news media sector are far from independent, of politicians, political parties and the government, largely because many of the outlets subsist on the resources from politicians and other interest groups. Those with a good revenue stream of their own (and they are few) as well as non-profit watchdog groups with generous donor support tend to exercise editorial freedom from local constraints. 

Based on the contents published by South Asia Check and available evidence, the applicant appears compliant with this standard. 

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

The applicant has a disclosure on its funders (See "Our Funders" http://southasiacheck.org/about/). 

1. http://southasiacheck.org/fact-check/govts-policy-and-program-made-wrong-claim-about-raxaul-amlekhgunj-petroleum-pipeline/

2. http://southasiacheck.org/fact-check/dahal-had-not-helped-madhav-nepal-become-prime-minister/

3. http://southasiacheck.org/fact-check/kathmandu-pm-levels-show-pms-air-quality-claim-baseless/

4. http://southasiacheck.org/fact-check/neither-tilicho-nor-the-new-lake-are-highest-in-nepal-or-world/

5. http://southasiacheck.org/fact-check/finance-minister-makes-unreliable-claims-about-nepali-printing-industry/

6. http://southasiacheck.org/fact-check/pms-foreign-affairs-advisor-repeats-an-already-debunked-claim/

7. http://southasiacheck.org/fact-check/deputy-speaker-tumbahangphe-is-still-a-member-nepal-communist-party/

8. https://southasiacheck.org/fact-check/binod-chaudhary-falsely-claims-internet-in-nepal-is-south-asias-priciest/

9. http://southasiacheck.org/fact-check/pm-advises-misleading-remedies-against-covid-19/

10. https://southasiacheck.org/fact-check/covid-19-there-is-no-medicine-yet-dont-get-misled-by-misinformation/

We rely on primary sources (both publicly available documents and human sources) to verify and fact check claims. It ranges from statements from top government officials, digital outlets and newspapers, lawmaker of opposition party 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.

Please go to http://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 focuses on fact-checking the statements made by people holding public office. Its "About" page (see "What to fact-check and what not to fact-check?" and "Code of Conduct for Fact-checking Team") explains how the process works. The applicant has, over the years, covered claims made by public figures from diverse areas and by politicians from various political parties, without concentrating too much on one side. Incumbent officials and political leaders do figure a bit more frequently in the fact checks.   

Overall, the applicant appears transparent in the variety of sources it has used. No instances of disclosures of any commercial or other such relations were found in its fact checks.

One way to evaluate disclosures of interests in individual fact-checks would be to look at the way language is used to identify the sources cited. Assessment shows sources are not always adequately identified. However, this must have more to do with a writing style in the Nepali context than with the lack of disclosure.

The applicant published 19 fact checks during the past year (22 May 2019 – 15 May 2020). These fact checks relied on some 113 different sources for reference, verification or corroboration. Only about a quarter of the attributions in those fact checks offered some form of identification (affiliations, designation, locations, etc.) of the sources cited. The identifications/qualifiers were at times too general (“another online news outlet” reported, “one research says”), making it hard for the readers to judge any potential interests of those sources. Several of the sources used were well-known institutions: internationally, the WHO, CDC, EU, US Department of State, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), etc., and nationally, the Nepal Telecommunications Authority, ICIMOD, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Finance, National Parliament, Federation of Nepal Printers’ Association, Department of Health Services, etc. It may be enough to name them, without further identification. News outlets as sources were named (Kantipur, the Kathmandu Post, Setopati, Republica, Himal Khabar, Post Khabar, Ujyaalo, AP1 HD TV, Prime Times TV, Janata TV, etc.) but hardly came with any specific identification. Locally, these may be familiar brands, but adding a brief identification after the name of these outlets could offer the wider audience, including those in the reach of the internet, a context to gauge or estimate any potential interests. Providing a phrasal description, for instance, on their location, affiliation, ownership (e.g., XX, a private-sector newspaper owned by a business conglomerate, …), and, when possible, acknowledging their slant, could help clarify their relevant interests a bit more. This is also true for hyperlinked sources, including social media accounts, which were often used without identifications.  

Based on the assessments of the published fact checks, no evidence of such affiliations could be found. The applicant expressly professes transparency and accuracy on public interest issues.  

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

Its stated policy on “About” page ("Code of conduct for Fact-checking team") prohibits its staff from involving in partisan politics, or in prejudiced or biased views, or in “carrying an agenda”. No evidence of such involvement could be gleaned from its fact check works.

In the fact checks done during the past year (see 2.3 above), news reports, with URL links to specific pages were the most often used sources, more to refer to the claims than to debunk claims, followed by online links to official documents (both governmental and non-governmental) to check the veracity of the statements. Lacking sources online, at least two fact checks relied on first-hand interviews with experts. Social media accounts were sometimes not named; they only appeared as hyperlinks to parts of the texts. In a rare case, an article linked to a document that pointed to its own subdomain: http://southasiacheck.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/global-broadband-pricing-study-2020.xlsx, without identifying the source of the data. The document itself lacked any identification, of its author or its publisher. This spreadsheet is presumably from cable.co.uk, which was mentioned in the earlier part of the fact-check piece.

This assessment found no instances of unnamed or anonymous sources in use by the applicant.  

For verification, relevant primary sources were used, most of the time. On a few occasions, to compensate for the lack of credible sources, the applicant conducted first-hand interviews with human sources. 

The assessment of the fact checks published in the past year shows that this indeed was the general pattern. 

Again, as mentioned in 2.3 above, overall, the applicant appeared transparent in its sources. More specific identification of individual sources would offer richer context for readers to make their own judgements about potential interests involved. This is also a matter that is relative to how informed or discerning the readers can be in a specific social or cultural setting.

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

The “About” identifies the organization as “an independent, non-partisan, non-profit initiative by Panos South Asia”. Under the tab “Our funders”, it gives the details on the sources of funding. 

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

The applicant has made a statement on its ownership. 

This page does offer general information on the organization structure.

There is, however, no specific statement clarifying how and who exercises editorial control. Please include a brief statement to this effect.  

The applicant has added a statement on the excercise of editorial control. See here http://southasiacheck.org/about/ (second paragraph). 

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

The applicant meets this requirement.  

There is a "Contact us" tab on the horizontal bar just below the South Asia Check logo on the main page www.southasiacheck.org 

The applicant has a visible and easily accessible link to a contact form on its “Contact us” page. It also has a “Request a fact check” form, prominently placed on its homepage. Links to its Twitter and Facebook pages are also provided on its top-right corner. 

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

It has published such a statement (“What to fact-check and what not to fact-check?”, on the “About” page). 

Many of the claims appear to have originated in social media/news media, selected on the basis of their public interest relevance. Not every fact check article explains the reason for choosing the claim to check. 

The stated practice by the applicant is to fact check statements that can only be verified on the basis of publicly available documents/statistics/evidences. As the applicant has explained, its focus is on false or misleading claims: “we don’t publish the results of fact-check statements/claims that are correct.” 

The applicant’s assessments focus on factual statements and statistics and sometimes on matters of popular belief. It appears consistent in the quality of sources used to asses the merits of evidences on claims made. Most individual fact check pieces focused on some specific claims, often made by the same person.  

All the fact-checks analyzed for this assessment were based on primary or secondary—mostly online—sources. On a few occasions, to complement online evidences, the applicant did contact expert human sources to seek further evidence. 

There is a "Request a Fact Check" section on the main page of www.southasiacheck.org . Users need to click the "Suggest us a fact check" button and submit their requests. Also, the "About us" section http://southasiacheck.org/about/ 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 have recently posted such requests both in Nepali and in English on Twitter. 

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

It does have a corrections policy, on “About” page, under the tab “Corrections policy” (“भूलसुधार नीति” in the Nepali section).  

We have revised our correction policy, in which we have addressed the issues raised by the assessor. Please click "Correction Policy" under "About Us" tab.

It has a general statement on the corrections policy.

To fully abide by this criterion, as it is stipulated in the updated IFCN Code of Principles, the applicant may like to revise its corrections policy, to better clarify what it does and does not cover in its corrections policy, and more specifically, how it handles major mistakes, especially those that require revised conclusions of a fact check. It should also consider specifying the situations or circumstances when it does not respond to complaints by readers or users.   

The applicant has revised and updated its corrections policy in compliance with this criterion. 

If we notice any corrections on our reports, we make sure to correct it. Corrections appear at the bottom of the relevant report. We were not required to make any corrections over the previous year. 

It has a clear policy acknowledging errors, correcting them and leaving the record of the correction in a way that can be accessed or retrieved.  

This is something new for us. Though we have been a signatory of IFCN Code for several years, we're not aware of this requirement. We would address this as soon as possible. 

This is something new for us. Though we have been a signatory of IFCN Code for several years, we're not aware of this requirement. We would address this as soon as possible. We have included the IFCN logo and added the description on South Asia Check being an IFCN signatory on the homepage. We have also provided a link to the form where readers can make complaints about us.  

At the moment, the applicant does not have a statement declaring itself an IFCN signatory. To comply with this criterion, please write a note informing readers that they may write to IFCN in case they believe South Asia Check is violating the IFCN Code. Along with this note, place a link to the IFCN site.    

The applicant has revised and updated relevant information in compliance with this criterion. 

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