This information is contained under "Tax returns and financial statements" on Wisconsin Watch's website: https://wisconsinwatch.org/about/funding/tax-returns/

Wisconsin Watch through its pilot with Gigafact would make it eligible, and its fact briefs work has been set up exclusively for the purposes of fact checking. However, that partnership will form part of my critique of other parts of the application, which are noted elsewhere. 

1. We began publishing fact briefs in September 2022 after Gigafact offered to pilot its short fact briefs with three members of the Institute for Nonprofit News. We were among the three who tried out the approach, and we have found it very successful. Attached is a a report I prepared early in the pilot project. Note that the early versions of fact briefs were 140 words. That has since been increased to 150 words. These items have become some of the best-read on Wisconsin Watch's website, https://www.wisconsinwatch.org.

2. We have roughly two dozen employees of Wisconsin Watch. Their names and roles are listed here: https://wisconsinwatch.org/about/staff/ Fact briefs are produced by interns and freelancers whose names appear with each fact check. Currently, freelancers Jacob Alabab-Moser and Tom Kertscher (long-time PolitiFact reporter) produce fact briefs for Wisconsin Watch.

3. Wisconsin Watch is a nonpartisan, independent nonprofit (501(c)3) news outlet that distributes its content to editors in Wisconsin and beyond. In addition to reporting, writing and distributing in-depth and investigative news stories, we also produce short, 150-word fact briefs in partnership with Gigafact, which developed the platform and provides technical and editorial support. We also have a service journalism project, News414, which provides information of interest via SMS text and social media to residents of Milwaukee's most underserved neighborhoods. 

4. A top goal is to achieve sustainability for our fact-checking operations. Currently, we and Gigafact are paying all costs for the operation. We are fundraising along with Gigafact to find stable revenue sources to support fact briefs, which have become among the most viewed items on our website. We have seen the value in these types of bite-sized fact briefs in shaping public debate, informing the electorate and serving the information needs of the public at a time of rampant disinformation. We would love to be able to continue producing about 5-7 of these briefs each week, especially as Wisconsin is poised to once again become a central player in the 2024 U.S. presidential election — and our residents targets of millions of dollars in misleading political advertising and false information spread through social media. 

I mark Criteria 1.2 compliant. 

As of June 27, 2023, Wisconsin Watch has produced 280 fact briefs. (See attachment). Here is a link to all of the fact briefs we have published on our site: https://wisconsinwatch.org/series/fact-briefs/ 

We realize that the United States has more than five verified signatories. We respectfully request a waiver of the 12-month requirement for the following reasons:

- Wisconsin Watch has published far in excess of 1 (one) fact check a week since launching in September 2022

- Wisconsin will be a target of significant dis- and misinformation in the coming year as a swing state in the consequential 2024 U.S. presidential election. 

Wisconsin Watch's fact briefs launched less than one year ago, but since then it has contributed fact checks on a range of issues IFCN would consider important to a healthier media ecosystem. These will be assessed in Criteria 1.4. 

July 13: Did Gov. Tony Evers veto tax cuts for people earning over $36,000 per year?

July 7: Did US Rep. Derrick Van Orden confront the staff of a Wisconsin library over a display of LGBTQ+ books?

June 9: Has President Joe Biden only nominated five white men for federal judgeships as of June 2023?

June 2: Was Wisconsin’s public school spending the third-slowest growing in the nation between 2002 and 2020?

May 5: Will taxes ‘automatically’ go up for 95% of business owners after the Trump tax cuts expire?

I reviewed the five fact checks listed above plus others included in the application, and noting a range of political parties, issues, and concerns covered and explained, I mark Criteria 1.4 compliant. 

Although we are housed at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, we receive no financial support directly from the university or the state of Wisconsin. Our offices are provided for free as part of a facilities-use agreement in which we agree to employ a minimum number of UW-Madison students as paid interns and to serve as guest lecturers upon request for School of Journalism & Mass Communication classes. We also receive free office space at Marquette University under an informal arrangement as part of our partnership with the Milwaukee Neighborhood News Service, which is also housed at Marquette. (We partner with Milwaukee NNS on our News414 public service journalism project.) We also are part of a UW-Madison-led research project into how journalists can effectively counter disinformation. Funding for that research project comes from the National Science Foundation. We are using the funding to pay for a full-time disinformation reporter who will produce stories about disinformation while being studied by the researchers. (This is separate from our fact-checking operation.) The goal of the research is to study how three outlets (Wisconsin Watch, The Capital Times and Snopes) handle mis- and disinformation and then measure the impact of those strategies, with the ultimate goal of developing an online tool and useful guidelines to help journalists counteract false information. We do not accept funding from political parties, current office holders (partisan or nonpartisan) or special interest groups.

Criteria 1.5 is compliant. Although the University of Wisconsin is a state school, I would not consider this a state-funded relationship.  

Here is a story about our participation in the NSF-funded disinformation research project: https://wisconsinwatch.org/2022/09/wisconsin-watch-joins-national-project-to-help-fight-misinformation-preserve-democracy/ More details on that research project are here: https://journalism.wisc.edu/news/team-receives-5-million-grant-to-continue-research-on-misinformation-correction/

Criteria 1.6 is compliant as its editorial independence is clearly explained. 

We are suggesting links to 10 fact briefs that show Wisconsin Watch's commitment to non-partisanship (See attachment below). The first two involve the sitting governor, Democrat Tony Evers, and his predecessor, Republican Gov. Scott Walker. In the first fact brief, we affirm a critique that Evers, the former state Superintendent of Public Instruction, blocked additional literacy tests for school children. In the second one, we knock down the allegation that Walker introduced a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. In the third brief, we affirm the controversial — but true — allegation that supporters of liberal Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate Janet Protasiewicz offered voters $250 to encourage others to vote. In the fourth fact brief, we confirm another controversial allegation — that her conservative opponent, Dan Kelly, compared Social Security and affirmative action to slavery. In the fifth and sixth briefs, we fact check the stances of Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Mandela Barnes, both rejecting and confirming claims made against him. Similarly, we affirm and reject claims made against his opponent, incumbent Republican Sen. Ron Johnson. In the final two fact checks, we examine claims against both Democratic U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin, running for re-election next year, and her top-ranked opponent, former Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke. (I) As you can see, we use the same types of standards for claims made by and against candidates and office holders, regardless of party or political leaning. (II) Each fact check relies on multiple primary sources. (III) And in each one, the "yes" or "no" answer relies entirely on the evidence we have gathered from reliable and transparent sources that we list with the fact check. 

Based on a review of more than a dozen fact checks published this calendar year, I believe the applicant demonstrates a commitment to nonpartisanship and fairness. As such, I mark Criteria 2.1 compliant. 

These are the links included in the applicant's PDF: 

https://wisconsinwatch.org/2023/06/did-wisconsin-gov-tony-evers-veto-legislation-to-increase-lit

eracy-tests/

https://wisconsinwatch.org/2023/01/did-scott-walker-author-a-constitutional-amendment-bannin

g-same-sex-marriage/

https://wisconsinwatch.org/2023/03/is-a-group-that-favors-wisconsin-supreme-court-candidate-j

anet-protasiewicz-offering-people-250-for-talking-to-your-friends-and-family-about-voting/

https://wisconsinwatch.org/2023/03/did-wisconsin-supreme-court-candidate-daniel-kelly-compar

e-social-security-and-affirmative-action-to-slavery/

https://wisconsinwatch.org/2022/11/did-mandela-barnes-say-he-could-not-care-less-about-a-sec

ond-amendment-right/

https://wisconsinwatch.org/2022/10/does-mandela-barnes-decide-who-gets-paroled/

https://wisconsinwatch.org/2022/10/does-ron-johnson-favor-letting-the-market-set-wages-over-h

aving-a-federal-minimum-wage/

https://wisconsinwatch.org/2022/10/did-ron-johnson-say-he-opposes-gay-marriage/

https://wisconsinwatch.org/2023/06/did-sen-tammy-baldwin-propose-25-million-to-train-abortionproviders/

https://wisconsinwatch.org/2023/06/did-a-leading-poll-indicate-that-an-anti-establishment-former

-sheriff-is-the-most-popular-us-senate-candidate-among-wisconsin-republicans/

https://wisconsinwatch.org/2023/05/how-wisconsin-watch-checks-claims-for-its-gigafact-fact-briefs/

I mark Criteria 2.2 compliant as this is clearly labeled on its website under the headline: "How Wisconsin Watch checks claims for its Gigafact fact briefs" which may be found here: https://wisconsinwatch.org/2023/05/how-wisconsin-watch-checks-claims-for-its-gigafact-fact-briefs/. 

Will taxes ‘automatically’ go up for 95% of business owners after the Trump tax cuts expire?

Fact check notes the 2017 tax under former Republican president Donald Trump. 

The fact check is in response to online chatter related to the Democratic governor's responsiveness to natural disasters. 

In addition to Wisconsin Watch's policy on non-partisanship for staff and in our journalism, https://wisconsinwatch.org/about/ethics/ we also abide by the editorial standards of our partner Gigafact, which reviews each fact brief to ensure compliance with its standards. (Attached below)

I mark Criteria 2.5 compliant as its nonpartisanship is clearly noted online and any reasonable person would see its work and that policy and understand its neutral stance. 

I mark Criteria 3.1 compliant because Wisconsin Watch's fact brief's sources pack a lot in a short brief. Using the Gov. Evers/wildfire item used above, the sources used to confirm included a State of Wisconsin news release; a Department of Natural Resources warning; a Department of Natural Resources wildfire risk assessment; and an executive order from the governor's office. A screen shot is included of what those sources would look like with hyperlinks for the reader. 

Assessing the July 13 item headlined "Did Gov. Tony Evers veto tax cuts for people earning over $36,000 per year?" writer Tom Kertscher explained that yes the Democratic governor did veto cuts. Sources included two sites from the Wisconsin State Legislature and the the Associated Press. Screen shot included as above. As such, I mark Criteria 3.1 compliant. 

I assessed the May 12 fact check headlined "Are Black people four times as likely to be arrested for marijuana in Wisconsin?" and mark Criteria 3.3 compliant based on that review, but I would urge caution that Wisconsin Watch not over-rely on its own reporting when relying on sourcing for its fact checks. Here, three sources were used including two primary sources and a link to the Wisconsin Watch story on the subject. I would flag that the fact check team should be as separate from the news team as ads used to be from editorial.  

I reviewed the March 31 fact check item headlined "Can disabled Wisconsin voters have someone help them with voting?" and based on this review mark Criteria 3.4 compliant. Several state resources were consulting on accessible voting and voting for folks with disabilities. 

We meet both criteria. Fact briefs are a fact-checking section or unit of Wisconsin Watch, which is an independent, nonpartisan and nonprofit investigative news outlet.

We meet both criteria. Fact Briefs are a fact-checking section or unit of Wisconsin Watch, which is an independent, nonpartisan and nonprofit investigative news outlet. We partner with Gigafact to produce the Fact Briefs. Wisconsin Watch determines which statements to fact check, conducts original reporting, edits each Fact Brief and posts the completed Fact Brief to its website. Gigafact is also an independent, nonpartisan and nonprofit organization. Gigafact developed the Fact Brief format, provides a platform for writing and editing Fact Briefs and does some backstop editing on the Fact Briefs before publishing them to its website along with Fact Briefs from other partner organizations. The arrangement is similar to Politifact. Wisconsin Watch is not applying to IFCN on behalf of Gigafact.

As I noted in the first sections of this assessment, the partnership with Gigafact on Fact Briefs is what brought Wisconsin Watch into the space of fact checking, and it's here that I have questions about the transparency of funding and organization (as well as staffing). Throughout its opening criteria, the applicant refers numerous times to that partnership “We are fundraising along with Gigafact” and “we also produce short, 150-word fact briefs in partnership with Gigafact.” 

Its website, which I've attached a screen shot of, notes this partnership, too. No one who studies nonprofit news can doubt the importance of collaboration, but for the purposes of applying the IFCN criteria to ONE applicant–in this case Wisconsin Watch–it becomes murkier as which independent organization and structure is being reviewed. 

As I noted in the first sections of this assessment, the partnership with Gigafact on Fact Briefs is what brought Wisconsin Watch into the space of fact checking, and it's here that I have questions about the transparency of funding and organization (as well as staffing). Throughout its opening criteria, the applicant refers numerous times to that partnership “We are fundraising along with Gigafact” and “we also produce short, 150-word fact briefs in partnership with Gigafact.” 

Its website, which I've attached a screen shot of, notes this partnership, too. No one who studies nonprofit news can doubt the importance of collaboration, but for the purposes of applying the IFCN criteria to ONE applicant–in this case Wisconsin Watch–it becomes murkier as which independent organization and structure is being reviewed. 

Here is our funding page link: https://wisconsinwatch.org/about/funding/  Here is an explanation of how we protect the independence of our journalism when it comes to funding sources: https://wisconsinwatch.org/about/funding/fundraising-policy/ And here are our tax forms showing nonprofit status and financial statements: https://wisconsinwatch.org/about/funding/tax-returns/

Here is our funding page link: https://wisconsinwatch.org/about/funding/  Here is an explanation of how we protect the independence of our journalism when it comes to funding sources: https://wisconsinwatch.org/about/funding/fundraising-policy/ Here are our tax forms showing nonprofit status and financial statements: https://wisconsinwatch.org/about/funding/tax-returns/ And here is an explanation of our Fact Brief process: https://wisconsinwatch.org/2023/05/how-wisconsin-watch-checks-claims-for-its-gigafact-fact-briefs/

My issue with Criteria 4.2 is the same as 4.1. It's not a concern about the independence of Wisconsin Watch or its independence and trustworthiness in the nonprofit news ecosystem, but rather how its partnership with Gigafact impacts its funding and its staffing. I regret that it's just not clear to me in this application. 

My issue with Criteria 4.2 is the same as 4.1. It's not a concern about the independence of Wisconsin Watch or its independence and trustworthiness in the nonprofit news ecosystem, but rather how its partnership with Gigafact impacts its funding and its staffing. I regret that it's just not clear to me in this application. 

Here is our staff page, which lists editorial staff and their responsibilities. https://wisconsinwatch.org/about/staff/

Editorial decisions are made by the managing editor (me) and executive director, Andy Hall. Wisconsin Watch is undergoing a transition, as I intend to retire June 30 and Andy will become co-founder at large, retiring on Dec. 31. Nevertheless, decisions about what and how to cover news and fact briefs will continue to be in the hands of the editorial team, including the associate director, Coburn Dukehart, the deputy managing editor, Jim Malewitz, the statehouse bureau chief, Matthew DeFour, and eventually the new managing editor. Beginning July 1, Wisconsin Watch's fact-checking operation will be run by DeFour. He can be reached at mdefour@wisconsinwatch.org. 

Here is our staff page, which lists editorial staff and their responsibilities. https://wisconsinwatch.org/about/staff/

Editorial decisions are made by associate director Coburn Dukehart, deputy managing editor Jim Malewitz and statehouse bureau chief Matthew DeFour in consultation with interim executive director Barbara Johnson. DeFour directly oversees selection and editing of Fact Briefs. Wisconsin Watch pays two freelancers, Tom Kertscher and Jacob Alabab-Moser, to identify and write Fact Briefs. Once written and edited, the Fact Briefs are submitted to Gigafact for a final backstop edit and posting to its website. Gigafact employs the backstop editor, who may flag a Fact Brief if it lacks clarity or would be confusing to a national audience. If any issues arise, the Fact Brief is returned to Wisconsin Watch for further review. Once published by Gigafact, Wisconsin Watch then publishes the Fact Brief on its website using its own publishing platform. Gigafact conducts weekly meetings with partner organizations to discuss any issues that came up during the backstop editing process.

I don't wish to minimize the expertise Wisconsin Watch's staff bring to nonprofit news. But, the fact checking/fact brief staff needs to be delineated from the news staff, and editorial control over the fact briefs needs to be explained as a separate entity from Wisconsin Watch. 

Jacob Alabab-Moser and Tom Kertscher's bios both mention "they contribute[s] to our collaboration with the The Gigafact Project to fight misinformation online." It's the only mention on the staff page of Gigafact. Having a separate section on fact briefs or some mention allows you to explain that Gigafact partnership and how the staff contributes. 

[I note the tipline in Criteria 5.6 runs through a Gigafact URL that lands at Wisconsin Watch. The landing page notes the tipline is "powered by Gigafact" so I would ask which WW staffers have editorial control over what is being fact checked/chosen to be fact checked if it first runs through Gigafact, which is not an IFCN signatory.]

I don't wish to minimize the expertise Wisconsin Watch's staff bring to nonprofit news. But, the fact checking/fact brief staff needs to be delineated from the news staff, and editorial control over the fact briefs needs to be explained as a separate entity from Wisconsin Watch. 

Jacob Alabab-Moser and Tom Kertscher's bios both mention "they contribute[s] to our collaboration with the The Gigafact Project to fight misinformation online." It's the only mention on the staff page of Gigafact. Having a separate section on fact briefs or some mention allows you to explain that Gigafact partnership and how the staff contributes. 

[I note the tipline in Criteria 5.6 runs through a Gigafact URL that lands at Wisconsin Watch. The landing page notes the tipline is "powered by Gigafact" so I would ask which WW staffers have editorial control over what is being fact checked/chosen to be fact checked if it first runs through Gigafact, which is not an IFCN signatory.]

https://wisconsinwatch.org/about/staff/

Setting aside my concerns noted above, the professional biographies of the Wisconsin Watch staff and the contributors to the fact briefs are clearly labeled. As such, I mark Criteria 4.4 compliant. 

At the top of our fact briefs page we list an email (factbriefs@wisconsinwatch.org) to reach the editors responsible for the fact-checking operation. https://wisconsinwatch.org/series/fact-briefs/ 

I confirm the email address listed encourages readers to communicate with the editorial team. As such, I mark Criteria 4.5 compliant. 

https://wisconsinwatch.org/2023/05/how-wisconsin-watch-checks-claims-for-its-gigafact-fact-briefs/ Attached below is a screen shot of the location on our home page where we encourage the audience to send in claims and which claims we can and cannot check. Here is the link to our tip line: https://gigafact.org/tipline?org_id=3181&utm_medium=website&utm_source=wisconsinwatch

The applicant explains online that it chooses to addressed what it calls "widely circulating claims" online "that can be answered yes or no." Further, online Dee Hall wrote, "Our objective is to verify facts, not debate political opinions. We strive to separate the claim (the fact) from the claimant (the individual or organization that is using it). We occasionally do spot-checks to ensure that we are achieving as much partisan/political balance as possible." They also encourages engagement with the audience on the issues that could be fact checked.

As such, I mark Criteria 5.1 compliant. 

I reviewed the aforementioned "Did US Rep. Derrick Van Orden confront the staff of a Wisconsin library over a display of LGBTQ+ books?" The fact brief outlines how the Republican representing Wisconsin's 3rd Congressional district questioned library staff about a display of LGBTQ books in 2021. It reviewed news articles and statements including interviews with librarians and those in attendance. It also noted the event happened before Van Orden was elected to Congress. 

As such, I mark Crtieria 5.2 compliant. 

To judge compliance with Criteria 5.3 I reviewed the July 3 item headlined "Did a Gallup poll find that nearly one in five members of Gen Z identify as LGBT?" To explain its Yes rating, Fact Brief went through the Gallup results of the poll conducted in February 2023, which surveyed 10,000 Gen Z respondents. Of those, more than 13 percent identified as bisexual, 3 percent identified as gay, nearly 2 percent identified as transgender, and 1.5 percent identified as "other, which included queer and pansexual. The item also turned to an April 2023 report from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which included data from 2021 showing more than one quarter of U.S. high school students identified as a category other than heterosexual. 

As such, I mark this criteria compliant. 

For Criteria 5.4, I assess the June 9 item headlined "Has President Joe Biden only nominated five white men for federal judgeships as of June 2023?" To come to its No rating, Fact Briefs explained that Biden nominated 127 people to federal judgeships including 13 white men who had been confirmed by the US Senate. The author explained they used a federal database of the Federal Judicial Center to name the men and further explained that as of January 2023, nearly half of the federal judiciary was comprised of white men, citing a nonprofit newsroom. 

As such, I mark this item compliant. 

For the final item to assess methodology, I assessed the May 8 item headlined "Does the Republican-authored shared revenue bill propose banning advisory referendums at the local level in Wisconsin?" To draw its Yes conclusion, the author explained that: "The shared revenue bill proposed by Wisconsin Republicans would prohibit a county or municipality from holding an advisory referendum, according to a draft of bill released May 2." But the author stated that the Democratic governor had noted he planned to veto any legislation that moved to his desk. The legislative sources are clearly labeled and the implications and steps are clearly marked in the brief. 

As such, I mark Criteria 5.5 as compliant. 

Here is the link to our tipline: https://gigafact.org/tipline?org_id=3181&utm_medium=website&utm_source=wisconsinwatch and below is a screen shot about what we can and cannot fact check.

The site is clear on what types of items would be fact check-able. As such, I mark Criteria 5.6 as compliant. 

Corrections policy: https://wisconsinwatch.org/corrections/

The corrections and clarification policy is clear and it invites readers to submit items for fixing. As such, I mark Criteria 6.1 compliant. 

The corrections and clarifications policy is shown in the attached screen shot. It demonstrated compliance. 

This example was from more than six months ago, but it was one of the only times that I can recall we were asked to modify a fact brief. In this situation, a member of the Mandela Barnes campaign contacted us within a matter of minutes after we posted a fact brief about Ron Johnson's ties to the pharmaceutical industry and donations to both Johnson's and Barnes' campaigns from health-care related people or businesses. I quickly reviewed the source she provided, and we modified our fact brief in accordance with the newly acquired information. Because this was more of a clarification than a correction, we did not label it as a correction. Here is the final fact brief: https://wisconsinwatch.org/2022/11/did-ron-johnson-say-that-he-has-always-been-a-supporter-of-big-pharma/ Attached below is the correspondence I had with the Barnes campaign. 

Criteria 6.3 is compliant as the applicant has demonstrated it meets its corrections/clarifications policy. 

N/A. We are not current signatories.

They are not an existing signatory. 

Our corrections policy is listed here: https://wisconsinwatch.org/corrections/ An example of adherence to this policy is cited in criteria 6.3. Another example of this policy in action is this story (not a fact brief) from Wisconsin Watch: https://wisconsinwatch.org/2022/10/toxic-chemicals-in-mississippi-river/ One reason we have so few corrections both in our fact briefs and in our news stories is that all Wisconsin Watch-produced content is meticulously fact-checked. Here is a description of our extensive fact-checking process: https://wisconsinwatch.org/fact-checking/ Beyond that, when it comes to fact briefs, each brief is both fact-checked AND edited two times - once by a Wisconsin Watch editor and another time by the Gigafact editorial director. That minimizes the opportunity for error. 

I mark Criteria 6.5 compliant.