Talk:FactCheck.org

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the FactCheck.org article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 31 days

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Pennsylvania Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. project's importance scale .

Websites: Computing Low‑importance

This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on FactCheck.org. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090617183546/http://www.factcheck.org/about/ to http://www.factcheck.org/about/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:27, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on FactCheck.org. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.webbyawards.com/webbys/current.php?season%3D16
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130420045855/http://factcheck.org/about/ to http://factcheck.org/about/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141208094242/https://factcheckeu.org/ to https://factcheckeu.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:05, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence was added a few months ago (by @Lightest), and has had two different citations, neither of which actually supported the inclusion of the sentence: "This fact-checking tool is not externally evaluated."

The currently cited source says "None found" under the heading "Are there external evaluations?" That is not documentation that the site either is or isn't "externally evaluated," even if it were clear what the editor meant by "externally evaluated." The first citation the editor used, didn't contain anything supporting the sentence at all, as best I can tell - I read over it a few times and didn't find anything relevant. Thus, I have removed the sentence. If it's going to be added again, it needs a proper citation and probably some links clarifying what is meant by "externally evaluated." Without a proper source, it's far too vague and subjective to be encyclopedic. CleverTitania (talk) 06:25, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]