Fact-checking is a process that seeks to confirm the correctness of actual information, with the aim of improving the accuracy and validity of the reports. Classification: Articles with phrases in need of sources since 2019 The fact-checking process can be carried out before (prior) or after the publication of the text (later) or otherwise publishing ideas. An internal fact audit is like a single publisher audit; When the text is examined by a third party, the process is called external fact checking.
The pre-fact check aims to identify errors so that the text can be corrected before publication or perhaps rejected.
Post-factual audit is often followed by a written bug report, sometimes at a visual scale provided by the audit organization (for example, Pinocchio’s in the fact-checking section of the Washington Post, or the Truth-O-Meter ratings at Politifact.com). Several organizations are dedicated to post fact checks: Examples include Vacecheck.org and Politifact.com in the United States, and Full Fact in the United Kingdom.
External ex post fact-checking organizations first appeared in the United States in the early 2000s, and the concept increased in importance and spread to various other countries during the 2000s. The United States remains the largest market for fact-checking operations. The research process on the impact of fact-checking is relatively recent, but current research indicates that the fact-checking process actually corrects perceptions spread among citizens, as well as discouraging politicians from spreading false or misleading claims.
Concordance between fact-checkers
One study found that fact-checkers for Politifact.com, FactCheck.org, and the Washington Post fact-checking division broadly agreed in their assessments of the allegations. However, a study by Morgan Mariata, David C. Parker, and Todd Bowser found that there are “fundamental differences in the questions asked and the answers given.” They concluded that this reduces “the desired benefit of the fact-checking process for citizens trying to determine the most truthful version of questionable facts.”
A research paper by Chloe Lim, a PhD student at Stanford University, found little overlap between the data that fact-checkers are examining. Of the 1,178 investigations conducted by Politifact.com and the 325 investigations by the Washington Post fact-checking department, only 77 were investigated by the two agencies together. The study found that fact-checkers gave the same scores to 49 subjects, and they gave similar scores to 22 out of 77 subjects, meaning they agreed with a rate of 92%. “Ultimately and in some cases, politicians’ strategic ambiguity may hinder the objectives of the fact-checking movement, “Lim concluded. The fact-checking process is sometimes questionable, in part because fact-checkers are just human beings, and also because the purpose of some fact-checking cases has been vague.
Fake news and social media
The adaptation of social media to become a legitimate and popularly used platform has created widespread concerns about fake news in the field. The spread of fake news on social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram provides an opportunity for negative impacts on society, thus new areas of research related to verifying fake news on social media are gaining momentum. However, verifying fake news on social media poses challenges that make previous technologies used to extract and detect data insufficient. In this capacity, the researchers are calling for more work to be done regarding fake news as it conflicts with psychology and social theories, and to modify existing algorithms for data extraction for application on social networks. Moreover, many scientific articles have been published urging the market to find automatic ways in which fake news can be filtered from diaries on social media.