Comment on page

Criteria for adding new sources

How to go sure that only high-quality reviews are available in the index? In terms of which platforms should be integrated, we have decided to use the standard IFCN ( as well as possible.
However, as our analysis shows, there are rather few European fact-checking platforms that feel connected to or communicate with these guidelines. Especially in German-speaking countries, the number is very low.
This means that we either have to ask for platforms to conduct this audit. Or we conduct our own tests in order to be able to justify transparently that a data source meets our requirements. This is a considerable additional effort, but certainly of great importance for the success of the hoaxly database.

Criteria for new sources of fact-checks or reviews

1) Check if the platform is verified signator of IFCN code of principles. If yes, you can go on an start integrating it without any further checks.
2) If not, you have to create an assessment yourself. For this you need to use the following document ( the IFCN Assessment Document): Create an issue on github here: and attach the document with your assessment.
3) Further criteria: a) The fact-checking platform checks statements, articles or topic areas that are identifiable independently of the publishing platform. For example, via URL, a special quote or a certain combination of keywords. b) The fact-checking platform is not operated by a political party or organization. It is independent of any political party. A dependency on a party is for example then given when there is a sponsorship by a political party or a party-based organization.

German version of this document

The German version of this document including a translation of the IFCN Code of Principles has been added here: