teyit.org is a not-for-profit social enterprise which focuses on social impact. Because of institutional infrastructure for social enterprises are underway in Turkey teyit.org operates under multiple institutional structures.

Research on media and social media is conducted by Teyit Media Research Association on behalf of teyit.org. Technology and training development studies are conducted by Dubium Bilişim Danışmanlık ve Ticaret Ltd. Şti. The only activity of the company is teyit.org. 

The company, Dubium, have promised to not distribute of its revenue to shareholders or head of the board.

The trademark of teyit.org is registered by Dubium. 

The institutional structure is well defined and all the documents prove its existence. I have checked and confirmed. I believe this is fully compliant. I only have a quick question to be answered: In the document about the "The company, Dubium, have promised to not distribute of its revenue to shareholders or head of the board." The executive committee consists of only one name and it is the owner of the company, Mehmet Atakan Foça. Because of the peculiar formation of Turkish laws, I find this normal but maybe Mr. Foça can provide a brief explanation. 

https://teyit.org/

https://teyit.org/eng

In the provided links, a reader can easily see that the organization has produced more than an average of at least one report a week. I recommend that a date based archive structure could be helpful for the reader who wants to focus on a particular period. As the content increases in the site, it will be harder to find previous reports in this website structure. 

We fact-check the viral claims on the social media which may possibly affect democratic processes or all the candidates during election periods:

https://teyit.org/fotografin-muharrem-incenin-camide-halay-cektigini-gosterdigi-iddiasi/

https://teyit.org/fotografin-meral-aksener-fethullah-guleni-yan-yana-gosterdigi-iddiasi/

https://teyit.org/erdoganin-meral-aksener-hakkinda-zilli-meral-kemalin-eteklisi-dedigi-iddiasi/

We fact-check the misleading stories for propaganda or violence especially during the crisis situations like military operations, bomb attacks or natural disasters:

https://teyit.org/guncellendi-afrin-harekatindan-oldugu-iddiasiyla-paylasilan-26-yanlis-goruntu/

https://teyit.org/turkiyede-yasayan-suriyelilerle-ilgili-internette-yayilan-14-yanlis-bilgi/

https://teyit.org/arakandaki-musluman-katliamindan-oldugu-iddiasiyla-paylasilan-18-yanlis-goruntu/

We fact-check the widespread false information about health issues which may affect public hygiene:

https://teyit.org/dondurulmus-limonun-kanser-tedavisinde-kemoterapiden-daha-etkili-oldugu-iddiasi/

https://teyit.org/corabin-icine-bir-dilim-sogan-koymanin-bazi-hastaliklara-iyi-geldigi-iddiasi/

Claims which point as a target an innocent person or organization to propagate polarization are another focus of us:

https://teyit.org/safiye-inciye-ait-oldugu-iddia-edilen-fotograflar/

https://teyit.org/diyarbakir-mesut-yilmaz-ilkokulunda-bos-zarflarla-dolasan-kisiler-kim/

We publish analysis upon misleading or fabricated stories without choosing a political side of any political debate. The methodology of choosing claims and researching a suspicious content is very strict and we perform in the frame of methodology for every claim. 

To be immune from selection bias, the decision to research a story does not belong one person on the team. Every day, the claims which are transmitted to us are argued by editors after prioritization criteria had been implemented. Virality is the common prioritization criteria. Importance steps in if the fabricated stories are harmful to divided groups, minorities or innocent people. Urgency is the key prioritization criteria during crisis situations.

https://teyit.org/metodoloji-ve-ilkeler/

https://teyit.org/methodology

The applicant demonstrates its work is based on a variety of subjects, speakers, fields and political positions. In an increasingly polarised political sphere, the applicant is fair and balanced in its coverage. 

We respect political diversity and the different worldviews of the team members. But we do not allow any point of view to be effective on the verification processes. The worldviews of the subcontractors are not effective in any analysis or any work done by teyit.org.

It has been indicated the agreements of full-time and part-time employees. Also, the playbook of teyit.org which has been prepared to show how we do fact-check for newcomers contain the same warning. 

https://teyit.org/metodoloji-ve-ilkeler/

https://teyit.org/methodology

In its methodology section, the applicant clearly demonstrates how the verification process operates. The staff is given a clear procedure based on factual findings to operate. At some point, a staff member's political view may still become effective. In order to prevent that all publishable reports are first seen more than one person before they go public. 

Every analysis contains external links to references and sources which help us to fact-check the claim. Users can easily follow the links to see how we have verified the suspicious news. 

In the main body of the analysis, we put the archive links to the original sources against the possibility of editing the sources. The timestamps of the tools like teyit.link, archive.is or archive.org help us to show users, what was the page looks like when we read them.

A while ago, we have changed our method to show sources. We put a box on the right side of the page to list all sources with their original links. We also write on this area the name of the person and the call date if we have connected with sources by phone. If our one of sources is e-mail, we put the screenshot of the e-mail body with the permission of the sender.

We have explained the reasons and motivation behind of changing the method of sourcing here: https://medium.com/teyit/we-are-changing-our-method-of-referencing-why-and-how-9c664de8668e

With some cases, we publish case studies to show users how we can find the evidence about related articles: https://teyit.org/konu/vaka-calismasi/

The signatory not only clearly explains how sources are demonstrated, but it has also taken steps to help readers fact-check themselves easier. 

https://teyit.org/nedir/

https://teyit.org/about/

The applicant detailed its funding sources and listed how funding was spent in every particular case. The only exception seems to be its collaboration with Facebook. Income from this collaboration is stated but there is no overview of spending in this case. A brief explanation could help. 

https://teyit.org/ekip/

https://teyit.org/team/

Key actors are clearly listed on the team page. Interns, volunteers and authors' bios can be reached when one clicks on names.  

https://teyit.org/contact/

https://teyit.org/iletisim

Evidence is clear. 

https://teyit.org/methodology/ 

https://teyit.org/metodoloji-ve-ilkeler/

Anatomy of an analysis of teyit.org: https://medium.com/teyit/anatomy-of-an-analysis-of-teyit-org-d7243a0b5244

https://medium.com/teyit/teyit-orgda-yay%C4%B1nlanan-bir-analizin-anatomisi-d9ced4e32911

The applicant took extra steps to provide a publicly accessible methodology. 

Internet users can send the suspicious and doubtful content via Website: https://teyit.org/ihbar-2/ Facebook: facebook.com/teyitorg Twitter: twitter.com/teyitorg and WhatsApp hotline: +90 (546) 474 54 40 We get 30 suspicious contents from those channels in daily average. Thus, we compiled the data what people mostly suspect from. We use dubito as data compilation by the way we can track our impact by analyzing the percentage of verified stories in the pool of reports.

https://teyit.org/teyit-org-ilk-icgoru-raporunu-yayinladi-internette-nelerden-suphe-ediyoruz/

https://teyit.org/en/insight-report-what-do-we-doubt-on-the-web/

https://teyit.org/secim2018-sahte-haber-karnesi-kac-ihbar-aldik-kacini-dogruladik/

https://teyit.org/en/election-2018-how-many-reports-had-we-received-and-how-many-of-them-were-verified/

https://medium.com/teyit/se%C3%A7im-d%C3%B6neminde-teyit-orga-iletilen-%C5%9F%C3%BCpheli-haber-say%C4%B1s%C4%B1-y%C3%BCzde-80-artt%C4%B1-296738dac1f1

https://medium.com/teyit/towards-the-election-number-of-suspicious-news-sent-to-teyit-org-increased-by-80-percent-804b2a5340ee

In this year we publish a page to show what is cooking in the kitchen. Make more transparent the editorial process, we open a page to reflect of dubito to users. In this way, people who have sent us a doubtful content can see the status of the analysis. Also, they can see the explanation if an analysis couldn't be done by clicking the question mark.

https://medium.com/teyit/editors-desk-is-online-follow-the-claims-are-being-investigated-d973d1a65885

https://teyit.org/editormasasi

The readers are provided with many options and although they may not receive personalized replies, they can have an adequate level of explanations to understand how their submissions were processed. 

https://teyit.org/metodoloji-ve-ilkeler/

https://teyit.org/methodology/ 

Public corrections policy is clearly explained in provided links. 

https://teyit.org/fotografin-zulme-lanet-kuduse-destek-mitinginden-oldugu-iddiasi/

https://teyit.org/videonun-abdnin-suriyeye-gerceklestirdigi-saldiriyi-gosterdigi-iddiasi/ (& https://twitter.com/teyitorg/status/985131605760139265)

The applicant has a good record of reports without major errors. In these two cases, which I would not classify as major errors, corrections are clearly made.