The Conversation is registered with the Australian Securities and Investment Commission. Further, as a not-for-profit, it is also registered with the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission. 

The Conversation fact checks claims or issues of elected officials as well as subjects of social concern and public life. Its application provided evidence of fact checks published that included those made by the prime minister on increasing storms and climate change and other claims by the education minister on child care costs. Professors who study those subjects were asked to provide a research-based approach to fact-checking the claims. The Conversation’s experts analyze the claims and then provide a “verdict” about whether the statement(s) was false, overstated or correct, noting the gray areas in how those facts may have been misinterpreted or misrepresented, which is an additional layer I found the public could find useful.    

A clear policy that offers analysis from an expert in the field. The person who made the original claim or statement is allowed an opportunity to clarify or provide his or her own evidence. The Conversation has a clear policy on then adding an additional layer of non-partisanship to the process by putting the subject matter expert’s claims under peer review. 

I think it’s worth noting here that I find their policy on non-partisanship as clear and direct as those at U.S. news organizations that ask reporters and editors to refrain from direct campaign or political involvement (as an example). I do note here—though I would not take away compliance in this area—that I do think it may be hard with the number of academics they use for fact checks to offer complete non-partisanship or know exactly the political views of its writers. But, I think here it is worth noting, that they have a clear policy and ask academics to complete a disclosure agreement. Those who work directly for The Conversation have additional steps the organization asks for to ensure to non-partisanship and fairness. It’s clear they have thought about and worked to demonstrate their efforts to achieve both here. 

This is clearly stated and easy for users of the site to navigate. 

This is clear, easy to find and use, and explains in detail its funding sources and goes further to explain who those funding sources are. 

The evidence submitted fully complies with IFCN requirements. 

The evidence submitted fully complies with IFCN requirements. 

Clear. I have to say as a college professor (now) and journalist (then), this combination of fact checking through an expert and peer review is one of the more innovative models I have encountered or read about. It’s insightful and innovative. Methodology and explanation here is transparent and user-friendly. 

What I most like about The Conversation ‘s site is that it’s as if they WANT you to know. In 2017, that is, at a minimum, refreshing. 

This is clear and easily defined and easily found on The Conversation’s website. 

The evidence submitted is sufficient.