Organization: South Asia Check
Applicant: Deepak Adhikari
Assessor: Dharma Adhikari
Edits made by the organization after this assessment
IFCN Staff wrote:
[The applicant has thoroughly addressed all the recommendations made by the assessor. For Criterion 6b, one easy solution would be to simply re-post or cross-post all corrected stories under a distinct navigation bar]
__________
Criterion 1a: With regard to the parent organization, the latest renewal letter from the government has been attached.
Criterion 2b: Include the code of conduct in the Nepali version > http://southasiacheck.org/np/about/ (Click the fourth tab)
Criterion 4a: Provide overview of spending in the English as well as the Nepali version > http://southasiacheck.org/np/about/ and http://southasiacheck.org/about/ (Details are under the tab “our funders”)
Criterion 4b: Include brief biographies of all staff members in the Nepali version. Be consistent with the names and details on staff members in the English version, unless the English version has staff members different from the Nepali version. > http://southasiacheck.org/np/about/
Criterion 5a: Provide a step-by-step explanation of methodology in the Nepali version as well as in the English version. > http://southasiacheck.org/np/about/
Criterion 5b: In the Nepali version, provide details on what users and audiences can and cannot contact you for. Provide a brief statement for users/audiences of the Nepali version which of the claims can be fact-checked. Uniformity with the English version will help. > http://southasiacheck.org/np/about/
Criterion 6a: It is confusing to hear that the South Asia Check does not have a corrections policy when its "About Us" page (English version) actually describes its "Corrections Policy". Include the Corrections Policy in the Nepali version also. Inform the public on the timeframe of handling corrections. > http://southasiacheck.org/np/about/ (The third tab is about correction policy)
Criterion 6b: Create a separate "public page listing all corrections made" in the past, in both the English and the Nepali versions. > The editor found this suggestion impractical. Any corrections made are mentioned at the bottom of the reports.
Finally, the "About Us" page (English version), in its current form, is too cluttered with topics that go beyond introducing the organization. It will be more user-friendly to have separate pages for specific policies and processes, especially on corrections, methodology, code of conduct, team members, etc. A drop down "About Us" menu with multiple tabs would help make the specific information more easily accessible to users. > About Us page has been redesigned and six separate tabs have been created both on the English and Nepali websites.
Conclusion and recommendations
Dharma Adhikari wrote:
South Asia Check, based in Kathmandu, Nepal, is a bilingual (English and Nepali) fact checker. Besides verifying the accuracy of claims made by public officials or institutions, it also monitors news media's use of anonymous sources, and reports on public interest topics.
Based on the assessment of South Asia Check's level of compliance, I am happy to recommend that their application to be a signatory of the code of principles of the International Fact-Checking Network be accepted. However, I suggest some minor edits and amends, especially in the Nepali version of their website.
Criterion 1a: Be precise in identifying the parent organization of South Asia Check in both the English and the Nepali version of their website.
Criterion 2b: Include the code of conduct in the Nepali version.
Criterion 4a: Provide overview of spending in the English as well as the Nepali version.
Criterion 4b: Include brief biographies of all staff members in the Nepali version. Be consistent with the names and details on staff members in the English version, unless the English version has staff members different from the Nepali version.
Criterion 5a: Provide a step-by-step explanation of methodology in the Nepali version as well as in the English version.
Criterion 5b: In the Nepali version, provide details on what users and audiences can and cannot contact you for. Provide a brief statement for users/audiences of the Nepali version which of the claims can be fact-checked. Uniformity with the English version will help.
Criterion 6a: It is confusing to hear that the South Asia Check does not have a corrections policy when its "About Us" page (English version) actually describes its "Corrections Policy". Include the Corrections Policy in the Nepali version also. Inform the public on the timeframe of handling corrections.
Criterion 6b: Create a separate "public page listing all corrections made" in the past, in both the English and the Nepali versions.
Finally, the "About Us" page (English version), in its current form, is too cluttered with topics that go beyond introducing the organization. It will be more user-friendly to have separate pages for specific policies and processes, especially on corrections, methodology, code of conduct, team members, etc. A drop down "About Us" menu with multiple tabs would help make the specific information more easily accessible to users.
Dharma Adhikari recommended Accept
on 03-Nov-2018 (5 years ago)
Dharma Adhikari wrote:
South Asia Check, based in Kathmandu, Nepal, is a bilingual (English and Nepali) fact checker. Besides verifying the accuracy of claims made by public officials or institutions, it also monitors news media's use of anonymous sources, and reports on public interest topics.
Based on the assessment of South Asia Check's level of compliance, I am happy to recommend that their application to be a signatory of the code of principles of the International Fact-Checking Network be accepted. However, I suggest some minor edits and amends, especially in the Nepali version of their website.
Criterion 1a: Be precise in identifying the parent organization of South Asia Check in both the English and the Nepali version of their website.
Criterion 2b: Include the code of conduct in the Nepali version.
Criterion 4a: Provide overview of spending in the English as well as the Nepali version.
Criterion 4b: Include brief biographies of all staff members in the Nepali version. Be consistent with the names and details on staff members in the English version, unless the English version has staff members different from the Nepali version.
Criterion 5a: Provide a step-by-step explanation of methodology in the Nepali version as well as in the English version.
Criterion 5b: In the Nepali version, provide details on what users and audiences can and cannot contact you for. Provide a brief statement for users/audiences of the Nepali version which of the claims can be fact-checked. Uniformity with the English version will help.
Criterion 6a: It is confusing to hear that the South Asia Check does not have a corrections policy when its "About Us" page (English version) actually describes its "Corrections Policy". Include the Corrections Policy in the Nepali version also. Inform the public on the timeframe of handling corrections.
Criterion 6b: Create a separate "public page listing all corrections made" in the past, in both the English and the Nepali versions.
Finally, the "About Us" page (English version), in its current form, is too cluttered with topics that go beyond introducing the organization. It will be more user-friendly to have separate pages for specific policies and processes, especially on corrections, methodology, code of conduct, team members, etc. A drop down "About Us" menu with multiple tabs would help make the specific information more easily accessible to users.
Dharma Adhikari recommended Accept with edits
Section 1: Organization
Criterion 1a
Proof of registration
Evidence required: Please provide evidence that the signatory is a legally-registered organization set up exclusively for the purpose of fact-checking or the distinct fact-checking project of a recognized media house or research institution.
South Asia Check
04-Oct-2018 (6 years ago)
South Asia Check is an initiative of Stichting PANOS South Asia which has its seat in the Hague.
Dharma Adhikari Assessor
01-Nov-2018 (5 years ago) Updated: 5 years ago
[The attached Nepal government-issued document clearly identifies PANOS South Asia as the name of the organization]
__________
The applicant, South Asia Check, is an initiative of Panos South Asia Foundation. Their attached PDF registration document (dated 13 September 2009) shows that the organization is headquartered in the Hague, the Netherlands. The foundation is a non-profit organization working in the area of media and development. South Asia Check (http://southasiacheck.org/about/) aims "to promote accuracy and accountability in public debate" through fact-checking. The attached registration document, however, does not refer to fact-checking specifically. The document is in the Dutch language, and I had to rely on Google Translate to read through it.
The "About Us" page (both English and Nepali versions) of the fact checker's website introduces the parent organization nomenclature ("Panos South Asia"), which is not precisely identical with the one in the registration document ("Panos South Asia Foundation"). Online search revealed that "Panos South Asia" was founded in 1997, and it is headquartered in Kathmandu, Nepal (http://panosa.org/about-us/). However, "Panos South Asia Foundation" (as specified in the registration document), is headquartered in the Netherlands. There is also the "The Panos Network" (http://panosnetwork.org/about), also registered in the Netherlands. Its origin seems to go much further in time. In order to avoid any confusion, it will help to be as precise as possible in identifying the parent organization on the "About Us" page of South Asia Check.
done_all 1a marked as Fully compliant by Dharma Adhikari.
Criterion 1b
Archive
Evidence required: Insert a link to the archive of fact checks published in the previous three months. If you do not collect all fact checks in one place, please explain how the fact-checking is conducted by your organization.
South Asia Check
04-Oct-2018 (6 years ago)
Dharma Adhikari Assessor
01-Nov-2018 (5 years ago) Updated: 5 years ago
The applicant offers a link to the archive of fact checks published in the past (http://southasiacheck.org/category/fact-check/). I checked for reports published during August, September and October—the past 3 months, in both the English and the Nepali version of the website. The link archive provided by the applicant shows that South Asia Check published 3 fact check reports during August and none during September and October. To verify if the latest reports were posted on the homepage and if they were yet to be moved to the archive, I looked through the homepage. The "Fact Check" section there does not show reports other than those 3 pieces already archived here http://southasiacheck.org/category/fact-check/ (Nepali: http://southasiacheck.org/np/category/fact-check/)
The following are the latest 3 fact check reports published by the fact checker:
In English:
AUGUST 15, 2018: Paudel wrongly claims NC central committee is more inclusive than that of communist parties southasiacheck.org/fact-check/poudel-wrongly-claims-nepali-congress-central-committee-inclusive/
AUGUST 24, 2018: Who should be credited for introducing health insurance program in Nepal? southasiacheck.org/fact-check/credited-introducing-health-insurance-program-nepal/
AUGUST 31, 2018: PM wrongly claims Nepal has lowest taxes southasiacheck.org/fact-check/pm-wrongly-claims-nepal-lowest-taxes/
In Nepali:
August 15, 2018: कांग्रेस केन्द्रीय समिति कम्युनिस्टको भन्दा बढी समावेशी भन्ने पौडेलको दाबी गलत southasiacheck.org/np/fact-check/3963/
August 24, 2018: स्वास्थ्य बीमा कसले ल्यायो ? southasiacheck.org/np/fact-check/स्वास्थ्य-बीमा-कसले-ल्या/
August 31, 2018: नेपाल सबैभन्दा कम कर लाग्ने देश होइन, प्रधानमन्त्री ओलीको दाबी गलत southasiacheck.org/np/fact-check/नेपाल-सबैभन्दा-कम-कर-लाग्/
done 1b marked as Partially compliant by Dharma Adhikari.
Section 2: Nonpartisanship and Fairness
Criterion 2a
Body of work sample
Evidence required: Please share links to ten fact checks that better represent the scope and consistency of your fact-checking. Provide a short explanation of how your organization strives to maintain coherent standards across fact checks.
South Asia Check
04-Oct-2018 (6 years ago)
We always establish the primary source of the statement or claims, for example, audio/video clip or byte or official statement or press release. While we don't have ratings for the fact checks we make sure that we give a verdict of true, false or in some cases partially true or false. We make sure that all our fact checks are based on facts and not hearsay or popularly held belief.
http://southasiacheck.org/fact-check/pm-exaggerates-civilian-deaths-congress-government/
http://southasiacheck.org/fact-check/entire-jumla-getting-less-1-mw-electricity/
http://southasiacheck.org/fact-check/agricultural-land-shrinking-tarai-due-flooding/
http://southasiacheck.org/fact-check/icg-brussels-bloats-madhesi-numbers/
http://southasiacheck.org/fact-check/ciaa-chief-karki-credited-for-things-he-didnt-do/
http://southasiacheck.org/fact-check/deuba-didnt-meet-the-dalai-lama-in-goa/
http://southasiacheck.org/fact-check/shekhar-koirala-was-not-alone-opposing-lokman-appointment/
http://southasiacheck.org/fact-check/mahatos-false-claims-about-madhesis-in-bureaucracy-police-army/
Dharma Adhikari Assessor
01-Nov-2018 (5 years ago) Updated: 5 years ago
The applicant has offered a brief statement on their fact-checking policy. It reads:
“We always establish the primary source of the statement or claims, for example, audio/video clip or byte or official statement or press release. While we don't have ratings for the fact checks we make sure that we give a verdict of true, false or in some cases partially true or false. We make sure that all our fact checks are based on facts and not hearsay or popularly held belief."
As evidence of "the scope and consistency of their fact-checking" and to substantiate that they "cover a variety of subjects or speakers and do not unduly concentrate on one side of the topic/context they fact-check", the applicant offers the following 16 links:
http://southasiacheck.org/fact-check/pm-exaggerates-civilian-deaths-congress-government/
http://southasiacheck.org/fact-check/entire-jumla-getting-less-1-mw-electricity/
http://southasiacheck.org/fact-check/agricultural-land-shrinking-tarai-due-flooding/
http://southasiacheck.org/fact-check/icg-brussels-bloats-madhesi-numbers/
http://southasiacheck.org/fact-check/ciaa-chief-karki-credited-for-things-he-didnt-do/
http://southasiacheck.org/fact-check/deuba-didnt-meet-the-dalai-lama-in-goa/
http://southasiacheck.org/fact-check/shekhar-koirala-was-not-alone-opposing-lokman-appointment/
http://southasiacheck.org/fact-check/mahatos-false-claims-about-madhesis-in-bureaucracy-police-army/
Going through these links, one finds that, over the years, the applicant has covered a variety of topics, ranging from claims made regarding politics, provincial boundary demarcation, education, health, environment, agriculture and land shrinking, ethnic population figures, ethnic representation in bureaucracy and police, bureaucratic appointment, constitutional validity regarding election deadline, constitutional representation of women, public security, public admin works, rural electricity reach, Nepal's support to India's bid for the UNSC, joint statement by Nepal and India, to a reported meeting between a Nepali politician and the Dalai Lama.
Fairly diverse speakers have been included in the verification of claims. They range from the prime minister, politicians (including from various parties, ruling and opposition), ministers, members of the parliament (including women representatives), bureaucrats, various communication media, official websites (e. g. the Investigation of Abuse of Authority), to international watch groups.
In each of the examples offered, South Asia Check has vetted claims against the primary sources of the facts, such as documents, weblinks, and audio-video materials, evaluating claims as true/false or partially true/ false. It has included claims made by various sides, and seems consistent in its approach.
done_all 2a marked as Fully compliant by Dharma Adhikari.
Criterion 2b
Nonpartisanship policy
Evidence required: Please share evidence of your policy preventing staff from direct involvement in political parties and advocacy organizations. Please also indicate the policy your organization has as a whole regarding advocacy and supporting political candidates.
South Asia Check
04-Oct-2018 (6 years ago)
Our code of conduct states that our fact checkers cannot be members of political parties and political party- affiliated bodies or professional unions. 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 organisation.
Dharma Adhikari Assessor
01-Nov-2018 (5 years ago) Updated: 5 years ago
[The code of conduct in the Nepali version is included]
__________
The applicant has shared its neutrality policy, in the following words:
"Our code of conduct states that our fact checkers cannot be members of political parties and political party- affiliated bodies or professional unions. 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 organisation."
However, the code of conduct is not included in the Nepali version of the site.
Compliance criterion (2b) stipulates two layers of compliance evidences— policy regarding organizational neutrality, and policy regarding staff neutrality. The above policy is categorical about preventing staff ("Fact-checking team") from direct involvement in political parties and advocacy organizations. Part of their self-introduction on their "About Us" page ("South Asia Check is an independent, non-partisan, non-profit") does refer to their neutral stance.
done_all 2b marked as Fully compliant by Dharma Adhikari.
Section 3: Transparency of Sources
Criterion 3a
Sources Policy
Please share a brief and public explanation (500 words max) of how sources are provided in enough detail that readers could replicate the fact check. If you have a public policy on how you find and use sources for your fact-checking, it should be shared here.
South Asia Check
04-Oct-2018 (6 years ago)
Our reports including fact-check reports are accompanied by audio/video clips, photographs, tables, charts and weblinks or the reference of the documents. Our verdicts are based on publicly-available documents or evidences such as nation’s constitution, laws, government’s official gazette, government websites, national census report, reports of the central bank, government ministries and the official websites of the subjects concerned. We provide weblink of the document if available or provide full reference of the documents cited.
Here are some examples of fact-check reports:
http://southasiacheck.org/fact-check/ciaa-chief-karki-credited-for-things-he-didnt-do/
http://southasiacheck.org/fact-check/rpp-n-done-better-kathmandu-jhapa-2013-ca-election/
http://southasiacheck.org/fact-check/cbs-2014-report-wrong-figures-kailalis-tharu-population/
Dharma Adhikari Assessor
01-Nov-2018 (5 years ago) Updated: 5 years ago
The applicant's "About Us" page includes the following information, part of which relates to their sourcing practices:
"We fact-check anything from statements made by key figures including elected and unelected officials on mainstream media including radio, television and print media among others, and viral social media posts including photos and potentially fake news. Whenever a statement/issue is identified, our team discusses whether the issue/statement qualifies for fact-checking. With regard to public statements from secondary sources including the mass media, sometimes we contact the individual making such statement if needed. Most of our fact-checks are based on non-partisan information sources including government statistics, books, journals and reputed international agencies.
We don’t fact-check statements that cannot be verified on the basis of publicly available documents/statistics/evidences. Also, we don’t publish the results of fact-check statements/claims that are correct, except for the statements that are against popular belief."
The links offered by the applicant show verification is carried out in a fairly accessible and discernible manner, with proper citations and attributions, as well as links to the available, authentic sources online. The fact-checker relies on government/official statistics, well-known international organizations, scholarly journals, books, weblinks to specific original sources, as well as photographs, audio-video links, books, tables, charts, and occasionally, original, human sources to verify claims or substantiate their evaluations of the claims.
done_all 3a marked as Fully compliant by Dharma Adhikari.
Section 4: Transparency of Funding & Organization
Criterion 4a
Funding Sources
Evidence required: Please link to the section where you publicly list your sources of funding (including, if they exist, any rules around which types of funding you do or don't accept), or a statement on ownership if you are the branch of an established media organization or research institution.
South Asia Check
04-Oct-2018 (6 years ago)
Dharma Adhikari Assessor
01-Nov-2018 (5 years ago) Updated: 5 years ago
[The applicant has offered an overview of spendings in the English as well as the Nepali version]
Partially compliant to fully compliant
__________
The link provided by the applicant includes official logos of "National Endowment of Democracy" and "Open Society Foundations" hyperlinked to official sites of those respective organizations, identifying them as "Our Funders". The Nepali version also includes similar information. However, no overview of spending is provided in both versions. The page does specify the form in which the organization is registered ("Panos South Asia is a non-profit media development organization active in South Asia and beyond since 1997")
done_all 4a marked as Fully compliant by Dharma Adhikari.
Criterion 4b
Staff
Evidence required: Please link to the section detailing all authors and key actors behind your fact-checking project with their biographies. You can also list the name and bios of the members of the editorial board, pool of experts, advisory board, etc. if your organization has those.
South Asia Check
04-Oct-2018 (6 years ago)
Dharma Adhikari Assessor
01-Nov-2018 (5 years ago) Updated: 5 years ago
[Brief biographies of all staff members in the Nepali as well as English versions updated]
Partially compliant to fully compliant
__________
The South Asia Check comprises of a small team of 5 people. The "About Us" page, under the section, "Our Team" (http://southasiacheck.org/about/#team), does identify the individual actors by name, with a brief biography, specifying their roles, and includes email contact address for each of them.
However, the Nepali version does not include actors' biographies; it provides only their names, their roles and their email addresses. It seems the list of staff members needs to be updated; at least two names are not cross-listed in both the versions.
done_all 4b marked as Fully compliant by Dharma Adhikari.
Criterion 4c
Contact
Evidence required: Please link to the section where readers can get in touch with the organization.
South Asia Check
04-Oct-2018 (6 years ago)
Dharma Adhikari Assessor
01-Nov-2018 (5 years ago) Updated: 5 years ago
The applicant's "Contact Us" page in the English version provides a user-friendly form for people to contact them. It clearly urges audiences "to use this form" in case they want to request a factcheck or tip the fact-checkers a story idea. The note to the users/audiences reads:
"Thank you for your interest to contact SouthAsiaCheck.org. We assure you that we’ll not share your personal information unless you permit us to do so. If you want to request a factcheck or tip us a story idea, please use this form. You can also directly send an email to info@southasiacheck.org."
The Nepali version has a form identical to the English version, but it does not offer any of the above details.
done_all 4c marked as Fully compliant by Dharma Adhikari.
Section 5: Transparency of Methodology
Criterion 5a
Detailed Methodology
Evidence required: Please link to a section or article detailing the steps you follow for your fact-checking work.
South Asia Check
04-Oct-2018 (6 years ago)
Dharma Adhikari Assessor
01-Nov-2018 (5 years ago) Updated: 5 years ago
[The applicant has updated their methodology providing a step-by-step explanation of the corrections process, in both the English and the Nepali versions]
Partially compliant to fully compliant
__________
The applicant's "About Us" page provided as evidence, does describe their general approach to fact-checking (See under the subhead, in the English version, "What is fact-checkable and what is not"), but it does not explain it step-by-step, in the sense of a systematic methodology, as suggested by one of the compliance criteria.
The Nepali version makes a general statement that the fact checkers verify statements of public actors by examining authenticity of primary sources and looking at the veracity of the claims. A clear and easily accessible separate page with a step-by-step explanation of methodology in both the English and Nepali version will help to enhance the credibility of the fact-checker.
done_all 5a marked as Fully compliant by Dharma Adhikari.
Criterion 5b
Claim submissions
Evidence required: Please link to the page or process through which readers can submit claims to fact-check. If you do not allow this, please briefly explain why.
South Asia Check
04-Oct-2018 (6 years ago)
Dharma Adhikari Assessor
01-Nov-2018 (5 years ago) Updated: 5 years ago
[The applicant offers a brief statement for users/audiences which of the claims can be fact-checked]
__________
The applicant provides "About Us" page as evidence for this criterion (5b). However, there is no distinct link or form for any "Claims submission" on this page. However, part of the information under the subhead "What is fact-checkable and what is not" clearly addresses the other part of the criterion, thus:
"We don’t fact-check statements that cannot be verified on the basis of publicly available documents/statistics/evidences. Also, we don’t publish the results of fact-check statements/claims that are correct, except for the statements that are against popular belief."
It takes some time to read through the page to find the above specific information.
Although the applicant does not cite its "Request a Fact Check" form as an evidence for this criterion, the right-hand column of the homrpage does offer the distinctly visible "Request a Fact Check" clickable graphics with a pop-up form. The instruction reads:
"If you think any statement/claim by an individual holding public office is incorrect, feel free to write to us. We will fact-check such statement/claim if possible and publish our finding. For this please let us know who, when and where made such claim/statement and if possible, send us the Internet link containing such claim/statement. "
The above instruction is missing in the Nepali version of the "Contact Us" page (http://southasiacheck.org/np/सम्पर्क-गर्नुहोस्/) although, in addition to a contact form, it includes a link to the "Request a Fact Check" form (in Nepali).
done_all 5b marked as Fully compliant by Dharma Adhikari.
Section 6: Open & Honest Corrections Policy
Criterion 6a
Corrections policy
Evidence required: Please link to the page with your policy to address corrections. If it is not public, please share your organization's handbook.
South Asia Check
04-Oct-2018 (6 years ago)
We do not have a corrections policy, but it is our policy that whatever changes or corrections we make, we acknowledge it with additional remark in the end. Our code of conduct states "Accept any criticism or critique of the published peices and immediately take steps to see if any corrective measures are required. If so, those measures should be taken. If a mistake has been detected by the team or pointed out by readers, that mistake should be acknowledged and corrections made. Under no circumstances, the posted piece can be deleted."
Dharma Adhikari Assessor
01-Nov-2018 (5 years ago) Updated: 5 years ago
[Includes the Corrections Policy in the Nepali version. Time frame of handling corrections is described as "immediate"]
Partially compliant to fully compliant
__________
The fact checkers provide the following evidence to substantiate their compliance with this criterion:
"We do not have a corrections policy, but it is our policy that whatever changes or corrections we make, we acknowledge it with additional remark in the end. Our code of conduct states "Accept any criticism or critique of the published pieces and immediately take steps to see if any corrective measures are required. If so, those measures should be taken. If a mistake has been detected by the team or pointed out by readers, that mistake should be acknowledged and corrections made. Under no circumstances, the posted piece can be deleted." (See "Code of Conduct for Fact-checkers ", also on "About Us" page)
The above statement begins by saying "we do not have a corrections policy". However, as its "About Us" page (See "Correction policy" subhead) shows, South Asia Check does have a corrections policy:
"Whenever there is a mistake in our report, we correct it and put an asterisk mark next to the correction and clarify the change at the bottom of the report. However, minor grammatical corrections are made without clarification. So far we have not made any mistake which would change the verdict of the report."
Evidently, with acknowledgement placed at the end of the article, mistakes are not corrected prominently, and it is also not clear from the available information on the applicant's corrections policy how they inform the public on the timeframe of handling corrections.
The Nepali version of the site includes no reference to the corrections policy. To enhance the credibility of the fact checker, it should consider including the corrections policy as well as the Code of Conduct, which refers to corrections policy, in its Nepali version as well.
done_all 6a marked as Fully compliant by Dharma Adhikari.
Criterion 6b
Examples of corrections
Evidence required: Please provide two examples of a correction made, or correction requests handled, in the past year.
South Asia Check
04-Oct-2018 (6 years ago)
In both these fact checks we had made errors in acknowleding the picture's correct location and the year it was taken which we later corrected.
http://southasiacheck.org/fact-check/photo-not-from-tikapur-incident/
http://southasiacheck.org/fact-check/deuba-didnt-meet-the-dalai-lama-in-goa/
Dharma Adhikari Assessor
01-Nov-2018 (5 years ago) Updated: 5 years ago
[No separate "public page listing all corrections made" in the past has been created. The applicant explains: "The editor found this suggestion impractical. Any corrections made are mentioned at the bottom of the reports". One easy solution would be to simply re-post or cross-post all corrected stories under a distinct navigation bar]
__________
The applicant offers the following examples (from more than a year ago), with a brief explainer:
"In both these fact checks we had made errors in acknowleding the picture's correct location and the year it was taken which we later corrected.
http://southasiacheck.org/fact-check/photo-not-from-tikapur-incident/
http://southasiacheck.org/fact-check/deuba-didnt-meet-the-dalai-lama-in-goa/"
The first is a report dated 24 August 2015 (correction on photo identification by location) and the other is dated 9 November 2016 (photo caption correction).
A search on the fact checker's website shows that the Nepali versions of the above stories also noted the corrections in a similar manner:
http://southasiacheck.org/np/fact-check/टीकापुरको-फोटो-होइन-अमेि/
http://southasiacheck.org/np/fact-check/2280/
The fact-checker has no separate "public page listing all corrections made", in the English or the Nepali version