Talk:Fact-checking

message: One thing fact checkers do is prevent circular reporting - where one source reports something, this is used to write a story at a second source, and the first source uses the second story to back up its initial claim.
E.g.: Newspaper A writes that taxes will fall, making up the story from thin air, or before it has been confirmed by anyone.
Paper B sees the story and also reports that taxes will fall, without stating where they got the story from.
Paper A sees paper B's story, and thinks it is independent verification of their initial story. As a result, what was baseless conjecture becomes presented as backed-up fact.
One example is during the Yom Kippur War. Before fighting broke out, the Americans (CIA) reduced their alert level/belief that war was going to break out. This caused the Israeli intelligence services to reduce their estimation of the threat level to their country, as they thought that the US knew better, and that they didn't think a war was going to happen. UNFORTUNATELY, the Israelis were unaware that the US only reduced their alert levels because they thought the Israelis didn't seem worried that a war was going to happen (and the American's thought the Israelis would know better, since they were closer to the enemy and had more to lose). The result was that both sides lowered their alert levels. --85.92.185.85 17:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *See Circular reference Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 07:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

text: The phenomenon is certainly worth mentioning but I'm not sure it needs an article of its own - I'd suggest adding it to Journalism_sourcing if it's not already covered there. Barnabypage (talk) 10:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should there be an article on Circular Reporting? 

message: I see that there is a section that is not present, that is criticism of fact checkers. Recently, there has been criticism criticism of fact checkers from both sides of the Political spectrum here in the United States. Perhaps a new section is in order?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: While becoming more familiar with the notability standards, I checked-out the first two entries under "Prominent fact checkers" (their initials are S.C. and J.M.) and could not find any third-party (or 1st party) sources suggesting their prominence as fact checkers.  All I could find were reprints of bios that mention that they were both once employed as fact checkers early in their careers.  J.M. was even reportedly fired after seven months as a fact checker before moving on to work as a writer.  Both are prominent as book authors, but not as fact checkers.  As this article says, being a fact checker is a common entry-level job for most newspaper reporters and journalists.  So, having "fact checker" on one's resume is not sufficient to qualify them as prominent fact checkers any more than having "reporter" on one's resume makes one a prominent reporter.
Conversely, I would say that Anderson Cooper more closely meets the definition of prominent as fact checker since I've seen him fact check many a conspiracy theory and rumor on his show.  This could qualify him a prominent fact checker; a widely-known, at least, and arguably respected fact checker.
Should the heading be changed to be more inclusive or should those two entries be removed?  I did not check the others.  Ordinarily I would "be bold and edit" per the Wiki-way, but since I have other requests on this page that may seem self-serving, so I'm just making mention of it for the regular editors for this page to decide. Al Johnson (CE) (talk) 21:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is "Prominent fact checkers" too restrictive of a heading? 

message: ...because the led is not a lede, it is an article unto itself, and poorly sourced, and ignoring major fundamental distinctions (ante hoc versus post hoc fact checking, and the different products and aims of each). I have placed an under construction" tag, to let people know work is being done. Please be patient through this evening. Le Prof  165.20.108.155 (talk) 22:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: I am beginning a rewrite of the lede

message: Shaded0 never removed groups, organizations and individuals completely, so I'm restoring the part of individuals that was deleted. Al Johnson (CE) (talk) 04:53, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-adding Individuals section 

message: Both 'fact-checker' and 'fact checker' are used in the article. What should it be? --Mortense (talk) 17:51, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Fact-check(er/ing) per dictionary.  ―Mandruss ☎ 07:04, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed several instances of not using a hyphen in the pre-publication fact-checking section Derpy725 (talk) 19:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it 'fact-checker' or 'fact checker'? 

message: We're surprisingly behind the times in one of the most important things for Wikipedia. We need a list of fake fact-checking websites. These devious websites are growing rapidly in influence number 2and are also a direct attempt to undermine Wikipedia and its goals. People often try to find out if a fact-checking site is reliable and Wikipedia is one of the first places they look, but they are almost always disappointed. In fact, we don't even list all the reliable fact-checking sites, not even https://mediabiasfactcheck.com! --Espoo (talk) 15:20, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  fake fact checking 

message: Wouldn't "Internal" and "External fact-checking" be better and more clearly understood terms? I notice this study uses those terms. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: In this case, I'd be happy to lose the Latin.  What do you think about "pre-publication" and "post-publication"?  It's not quite the same split as internal/external (because a newspaper could do post-publication internal fact-checking).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:17, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed my mind.  I like your internal/external proposal better.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:36, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the umbrella distinction should be Internal and External--the Latin terms are not relevant in modern publications. Cfdrury (talk) 22:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ante-hoc and post-hoc fact-checking or "Internal" and "External fact-checking"? 

message: Should there be a computational fact-checking section? This aspect of fact-checking is becoming more and more relevant as digital platforms churn out mass amounts of information via platforms that don't vet them for accuracy (ie: Facebook). 
Cfdrury (talk) 20:30, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Computational Fact Checking Section 

message: I do not think there's value in adding text to the first sentence of the lead about how fact-checkers have on occasion clarified that viral satirical items were in fact false. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fact-checking of viral satire 

message: The article is missing content on the history of fact-checking. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Supplied today (briefly). Kookaburra17 10:21, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of fact-checking 

message: It strikes me that the lead ought to include the fact (sorry) that there are real questions about the effectiveness of fact-checkers. Right now it suggests that there's some consensus—but if less than 1-in-3 Americans trusts them, obviously that premise is thrown into question. Side note: while see that the cited source asserts there's more "relevance" for fact-checking than in the past, it lacks any sort of support, even indirect, for the claim. Interested to know what those involved with this page think—thanks! Elle Kpyros (talk) 20:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead needs more balance?