European Fact-Checking Standards Network (EFCSN)

VERIFIED MEMBERS

Membership in the EFCSN signifies an organisation’s rigorous commitment to provide accurate information ethically and transparently, without bias or prejudice and focus on matters in the public interest as well as a proven track record of excellence, integrity and accountability as definied in the European Code of Standards for Independent Fact-Checking Organisations.

← Return to organization page

Faktisk.no

Website

https://www.faktisk.no/

Date

15/03/2024

Please, answer the following questions:

Applicant

Date: 20/11/2023

Download File

Rasmus Kerrn-Jespersen (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 02/01/2024

The applicant submitted their application on November 8, 2023. Therefore, the fact-checking list covers the period from November 1, 2022, and one year ahead. During that period, 105 fact-checks were conducted, averaging more than 8 fact-checks per month.

All the links in the attached document are not functioning. However, it was easy to locate the fact-checks as the list included their headlines.

A review of 10 random articles revealed that 9 were fact-checks, while 1 was not. An example of an article that is not a fact-check is "Hvorfor flytter rikingene til Sveits?" in English "Why are the rich moving to Switzerland?" (link: https://www.faktisk.no/artikler/0o6l9/hvorfor-flytter-rikingene-til-sveits). The article's headline is "Why are the rich moving to Switzerland?" - but it does not answer the question. The article primarily consists of an interview with a researcher explaining the tax regulations when moving from Norway. It is not a fact-check in the traditional sense as there is no specific claim to be checked, although the question may be relevant to investigate journalistically. The article, therefore, contributes effectively to overall coverage, and since the applicant produces far more fact-checks than required, there is ample room for some articles to contribute in other ways.

Article 2.2: Methodology

In order to be recognised as a verified member of the European Fact-Checking Standards Network (EFCSN), operations must:

Applicant

Date: 30/10/2023

https://www.faktisk.no/slik-jobber-vi

Sabina Schousboe (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 09/01/2024

The organization's methodology section is clear and easily accessible on their website: 1) It firstly covers in great detail where the operation finds claims as well as how and from which criteria the organization chooses claims for review. 2) Secondly, the section describes how the organization conduct their research with most details provided to the practice of contacting the origin of a claim to establish context, while less detail is provided in elaborating the journalistic methodology for evaluating the claim. 3) Thirdly, the section describes publication practices, including a 'right to reply'. No rating system is used, the organization publishes a 'claim' and a 'conclusion', which is described in this section as well.

In further review of the methodology following the rest of Article 2, it should be noted that the methodology section does not in detail elaborate on requirements listed in 2.F, G, H more than what is covered by 2.E. However, these requirements have been assessed as compliant following a review of a sample of fact-checks in the below assessment. Such review was not possible in the same way for assessing 2.J, which is not specifically detailed in the methodology section either, and thus marked as 'Need more information'.

Rasmus Kerrn-Jespersen (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 03/01/2024

The applicant has a brief and accessible description of how they operate, including an explanation of which claims are fact-checked, the editorial procedure, and how conclusions are reached and presented. The description could benefit from additional specific requirements for the applicant's journalism, but accessibility is likely emphasized here - and the applicant's journalism aligns well with EFCSN's requirements for fact-checking.

Applicant

Date: 30/10/2023

We focus on topics that are in the public interest, as determined by their news value for our audience, which is composed of Norwegian citizens and Norwegian-speaking people in general. Our stories usually track the news cycle relatively closely, with some stories focusing on misinformation that goes viral on social media. We rely on traditional criteria of newsworthiness to determine which topics we focus on and which stories we publish, including their relevance to our audience, their impact on society, and their proximity (topical or geographical) to our audience. We consider potential for causing harm a special case of relevance, and focus our attention on misinformation that is likely to cause harm when we detect it, e.g. in the case of vaccine misinformation.

Sabina Schousboe (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 02/01/2024

In assessing the organization's response as well as a sample of fact-checks, the organization is found to concentrate on topics that concern 'the welfare of society or individuals' understood as including a range of issues, from matters of health, education, environment, employment etc.

Rasmus Kerrn-Jespersen (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 03/01/2024

The applicant presents both articles and other types of editorial content covering a wide range of diverse topics. It is evident that the conflict between Israel and Hamas dominates the Norwegian media landscape, and this is currently reflected on the website. Additionally, topics such as climate, Norwegian politics, Covid-19, education, online fraud, health, and many other subjects of public interest are prominently featured. The applicant produces content that is in the public interest.

Applicant

Date: 30/10/2023

There is a box where users can submit tips at the bottom of all of our articles and on our website.

See:
https://www.faktisk.no/
https://www.faktisk.no/artikler/0o656/sykehuseksplosjonen-i-gaza-nye-analyser-sar-tvil-om-videobevis

Sabina Schousboe (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 02/01/2024

The organization has an easily-accessible channel for the public to submit claims across their website and articles.
The explanation of "what readers can legitimately expect will be fact-checked and what isn't fact-checkable" is however only available in the methodology section 'This is how we work' and not included in the 'Tip us' form.

Rasmus Kerrn-Jespersen (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 02/01/2024

The applicant has a tip function at the bottom of the website and at the end of all articles. It is easy to access. However, the applicant lacks a description of the types of claims that make sense to tip about according to the following sub-criterion: "while making it clear what readers can legitimately expect will be fact-checked and what isn’t fact-checkable."

The definition of claims that can be fact-checked is available on the "How we work" page and reads as follows: "Factual claims are fact-checked. Neither emotions nor opinions can be fact-checked." Following this, there are several bullets that precisely specify when a claim can be fact-checked.

I assess that the applicant is compliant, but with a clear recommendation to either link from the tip function to the "How we work" page or add a brief definition of what fact-checking is to the tip function.

Sabina Schousboe (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 08/01/2024

The practice is not further outlined or detailed besides the practice described following paragraph 2.F. In reviewing a sample of fact-checks, one example of an anonymous source was found. However, this exception fits the criteria of the guidelines taking into account a source's safety and/or attributed to an unnamed source via an organization. In the rest of the sample, all sources were named.

Sabina Schousboe (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 09/01/2024

Typing mistake in above message: referring to paragraph 2.E

Rasmus Kerrn-Jespersen (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 03/01/2024

While the applicant does not explicitly state in their methodology section that sources must be mentioned by name, it is implied in the ambition to employ "open journalistic methods" and the idea that "readers can follow the process and see how we arrived at our conclusion." In the examination of a randomly selected set of articles, the applicant did not use anonymous sources; on the contrary, all sources were thoroughly described.

Sabina Schousboe (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 08/01/2024

In reviewing the website section 'This is how we work', the step is not outlined in the organization's methodology. In reviewing a sample of fact-checks, many are however credited to multiple fact-checkers. I'm not sure whether this is to signal compliance with this requirement.

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 25/01/2024

Our fact-checks and articles are always evaluated by fact-checkers who have not worked on the article in question. In addition, the decision to publish is made by the acting editor after a review (to us, this is implicit in the role of the editor). We will add this to the methodology section.

Sabina Schousboe (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 29/02/2024

Rating change following answer form the organisation.

Rasmus Kerrn-Jespersen (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 03/01/2024

Although this procedure is not described in the methodology section, it is common practice in most Norwegian media outlets for an editor or editorial staff to review the journalist's work before it is published. There is no reason to believe that this is not the case for the applicant—it just needs to be added to the methodology section.

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 16/02/2024

We are adding a remark about this to our methodology section.

Rasmus Kerrn-Jespersen (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 22/02/2024

I have not found the promised addition, but am changing the assessment to compliant with a clear expectation that the promised addition will soon be available on the website.

Best Practices:

In addition to the required standards listed above, the Code identifies the following as a best practice that is encouraged but not required to join the EFCSN.

Sabina Schousboe (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 08/01/2024

In reviewing the attached impact report, the organization outlines four strategic goals and their progress measured through 'goal attainment'. All four progress descriptions showcase relevant examples of the organization's effort to realize the respective goal.

A small note to the progress examples provided for goal 1 (debunk misinformation [...] through fact-checking and reporting in a wide range of formats): While accepting the premise that "direct measures" are not the most purposeful way of measuring progress, my curiosity for some data/metrics is peaked when the organization highlights how they have reached "a wide audience" and "a huge audience" through specific formats/focus areas.

Rasmus Kerrn-Jespersen (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 03/01/2024

Beyond any doubt, the applicant is both effective and thorough in their approach to fact-checking public discourse in Norway. The applicant lists several compelling examples of conducting thorough journalism that has had a positive impact on public debate. The applicant is actively dedicated to strengthening media criticism in society, especially among young people, and this effort reaches a broad audience of young individuals.

The applicant has personally employed open-source intelligence (OSINT) methods in their journalism but has been working since 2022 to disseminate these methods to multiple media outlets. Specifically, the applicant has established a media bank containing content that has been either verified or debunked, allowing other media sources to access and utilize this information.

On numerous occasions, the applicant has contributed to political decision-making processes regarding misinformation and media criticism. The applicant is conscious of avoiding political bias but willingly offers their knowledge and expertise in areas where it can provide a better foundation for decision-making.

Overall, the applicant's documentation illustrates their engagement in numerous high-quality fact-checks, concerted efforts to enhance the public's ability to critically evaluate media, and the simultaneous provision of the best possible decision-making foundation for politicians. The applicant significantly contributes to strengthening public debate in Norway.

Article 3.1: Non-Partisanship and Impartiality

In order to be recognised as a verified member of the European Fact-checking Standards Network (EFCSN), operations must:

Applicant

Date: 30/10/2023

Policy: https://www.faktisk.no/vedtekter-etikkregler-og-faktasjekkplakaten

Examples from our 2023 election coverage show that we use the same methodology regardless of claimants' political affiliation, and that we cover claims made by prominent politicians from the government, the opposition, and parties aligned with the government:

These three fact-checks (collected in a single, comprehensive article) address claims made by politicians from various parts of the political spectrum (the government and the opposition) during a televised debate:
https://www.faktisk.no/artikler/zkxg9/nei-listhaug-satte-ikke-i-gang-elektrifiseringen-av-melkoya

The following article contains fact-checks of three claims made by the Norwegian prime minister and one made by the opposition leader during a live debate:

https://www.faktisk.no/artikler/0o6g6/ja-motivasjonen-faller-blant-norske-elever

The following two fact-checks uses public statistics to assess claims from the government and the opposition:

Opposition: https://www.faktisk.no/artikler/jdp6r/riktig-om-skole
Government: https://www.faktisk.no/artikler/jyydd/nei-80-90-prosent-av-bilparken-er-ikke-elektrisk

This fact-check is about a claim by the opposition leader:

https://www.faktisk.no/artikler/jx862/nei-de-fleste-kommuner-uten-eiendomsskatt-er-ikke-hoyre-styrte

And one fact-check about a claim from a politician from the Red Party, which supports the government without being a formal coalition partner:

https://www.faktisk.no/artikler/z25gd/ja-na-er-det-ekstreme-forskjeller-i-stromprisen

Sabina Schousboe (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 09/01/2024

The publicly available website section on ethical rules and fact-checking policies outlines and displays commitment to this practice. In reviewing the provided selection of fact-checks, their accompanying explanations as well as the general review of the organization's work, the organization complies with the requirement.

Rasmus Kerrn-Jespersen (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 04/01/2024

The applicant asserts in their ethical rules that the media outlet is independent. Under these ethical rules, the applicant states that they are a member of IFCN, which requires a "commitment to impartiality and fairness." This commitment is reflected, for example, in statements such as "We fact-check claims based on the same standard every time. We do not concentrate our fact-checks on one party. We follow the same process for every fact-check."

The applicant provides links to six articles, collectively addressing 10 claims. The claims are made by different sides of the political spectrum, demonstrating that the applicant uses the same methods and sources to assess the accuracy of the claims.

Applicant

Date: 30/10/2023

This is covered by the Code of Ethics of the Norwegian Press, which we are committed to as per our statutes:

https://www.faktisk.no/vedtekter-etikkregler-og-faktasjekkplakaten
https://www.faktisk.no/slik-jobber-vi

Sabina Schousboe (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 10/01/2024

As noted by the organization, this practice is not directly outlined in the methodology page of their website, but rather covered by the Code of Ethics of the Norwegian Press which the organization is committed to per their statutes visible on their website.

Rasmus Kerrn-Jespersen (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 04/01/2024

To document compliance with this requirement, the applicant refers to the ethical guidelines for Norwegian media. The applicant states in multiple places on its website that they adhere to these ethical guidelines and provides links to them. In the guidelines, it is stated, "Show openness about underlying conditions that may be relevant to the audience's perception of journalistic content." This can be interpreted broadly, such as a requirement to explicitly mention sources' conflicts of interest, and therefore, it could be considered a sufficient response to this point. However, the fulfillment could have been made more explicit.

The applicant does not provide any specific examples of this occurring, and the review of the website and editorial content has not raised any concerns about this matter.

Applicant

Date: 30/10/2023

https://www.faktisk.no/vedtekter-etikkregler-og-faktasjekkplakaten

Sabina Schousboe (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 10/01/2024

While explicitly stated in Article 1.7 as a newly added policy section, I have trouble finding the organization's statement on gifts on the linked website? In review, I can only see a more general statement on declaration of staff's financial interests.

Sabina Schousboe (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 10/01/2024

In further review, I find that the Code of Ethics of the Norwegian Press Association does include a statement on accepting money, goods or services.

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 25/01/2024

It's understandable that this isn't entirely clear. The strenghtened formulation was added to our internal ethics handbook, not to the website. However, if needed, we can add an explicit statement on the website as well.

Sabina Schousboe (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 29/02/2024

Thank you for the clarification. It could be beneficial to add this internal handbook in future reviews. Re-reading the Code of Standard as well as the above guiding sentence in this Proposal Editor, I am in doubt whether it be necessary to make this statement publicly available (as suggested by text in the Proposal Editor: "Please, provide a link to the policy or other mechanism published on your website") or only have the internal policies in place (as suggested by the Code). I will leave it to the EFCSN to further guide on potential follow up actions and rate compliant.

Rasmus Kerrn-Jespersen (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 04/01/2024

The applicant provides clear and explicit guidelines on this point, as evidenced by the links provided.

Applicant

Date: 30/10/2023

https://www.faktisk.no/vedtekter-etikkregler-og-faktasjekkplakaten

Sabina Schousboe (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 10/01/2024

The publicly available website section on ethical rules and fact-checking policies displays commitment to this practice by stating that the organization does not promote nor take a political position on the topics they fact-check.

The impact report attached to article 2.L describes how the organization is involved in policy discussions about journalism and media literacy with the goal to 'promote media literacy' and 'impact domestic policy discussion on topics connected to misinformation and media literacy'. The report states how this work is not 'traditional advocacy', but rather involves a practice that makes knowledge and experience on these issues available to various societal actors. Such reflections are, however, not publicly available on the website following my review?

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 25/01/2024

This part of the impact report described the work of our media literacy division, Tenk, not the fact-checkers. They are a separate part of Faktisk, and do not perform journalistic work. Apologies for not being clear about this. Our internal rules on advocacy are stated in the internal ethics handbook, but we could add the relevant sections to the website as well, if needed.

Sabina Schousboe (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 29/02/2024

Change of rating following clarification.

Rasmus Kerrn-Jespersen (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 04/01/2024

In section 2.L. of the application, the applicant has expressed a commitment to actively contribute to strengthening the foundation of public discourse on relevant topics such as media literacy and freedom of expression. In the attached file, the applicant describes how they have worked on this specifically, emphasizing that they are well-aware of the boundaries: "Faktisk.no does not engage in activism or traditional advocacy. Our aim is to influence decision-makers through sharing the knowledge and experience we have gathered through our work as fact-checkers, researchers, and media literacy professionals."

However, this clear guideline is not apparent on the applicant's website. There is a need for the applicant to update the website. When evaluating that the applicant meets this criterion, the emphasis is placed on the description in the attached file and the overall impression of the applicant's actions.

Article 3.2: Privacy and Safety

In order to be recognised as a verified member of the European Fact-Checking Standards Network (EFCSN), operations must:

Applicant

Date: 30/10/2023

We anonymize non-public persons when there is reason to believe that their statements or identification may cause harm either to their reputation or to their person. We also follow the guidelines outlined in the Code of Ethics of the Norwegian Press in these matters. For examples, see:

https://www.faktisk.no/artikler/0rgky/fakta-om-barnevernet-finner-stotte-i-felles-motstand
https://www.faktisk.no/artikler/0rpe4/nei-mann-fikk-ikke-sparken-av-bergen-kommune-for-a-demonstrere-mot-koronatiltak

Sabina Schousboe (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 11/01/2024

With reference to the Code of Ethics of the Norwegian Press Association in the website section on ethical rules and fact-checking policies, the organization displays commitment to this requirement - which is also found when reviewing a sample of fact-checks.

In regards to the two examples provided, the first anonymizes the non-public person, while the second contains full name. While I in review of the examples found situational differences, the application text could have shared further reflections on the difference in practice.

Rasmus Kerrn-Jespersen (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 04/01/2024

The applicant provides two examples. One where the mentioned woman is anonymized, and another where both the originator of the claim and the individual the claim concerns speak with their full names. Overall, this gives the impression that the applicant is able to safeguard the security and privacy of those they write about.

Applicant

Date: 30/10/2023

We anonymize such sources unless they are public figures, either in virtue of them having large followings on social media or being otherwise prominent people.

Sabina Schousboe (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 11/01/2024

Reviewing a sample of fact-checks, the organization is found compliant with this standard: The sample included several examples of choosing not to explicitly name the social media users in the text of the fact-check (only through links to archived formats) and blurring of pictures; and one example including a screenshot of a post by a named social media user, who could convincingly be perceived as a public figure following from their large SoMe following.

Rasmus Kerrn-Jespersen (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 05/01/2024

Ansøger angiver at anonymisere kilderne i den slags tilfælde. En gennemgang af en række artikler har ikke vist nogle relevante eksempler.

Rasmus Kerrn-Jespersen (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 05/01/2024

** Disregard the above, which are notes in Danish. Here is the relevant comment **

The applicant states that they anonymize sources in such cases. A review of several articles shows how the applicant links to users on social media with many followers/large political activity. The review did not find any examples of anonymized sources.

Best Practices

In addition to the required standards listed above, the Code identifies the following as a best practice that is encouraged but not required to join the EFCSN.

Applicant

Date: 30/10/2023

Our fact-checkers face little to no trauma or harassment as a result of our activities. However, as part of our measures surrounding the war in Ukraine and Israel/Gaza, where fact-checkers and other journalists were exposed to potentially traumatizing images, we held sessions with a expert from the Norwegian journalists' union.

Applicant

Date: 30/10/2023

Download File

Sabina Schousboe (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 11/01/2024

Commending the initiative to act on the potential trauma from viewing graphic images of war, I would kindly ask for elaboration of the mentioned sessions: What were the content of these sessions? Which area of expertise did the expert from the union cover? Which protocols or guidelines have been shared with staff (during or after these sessions) to handle such situations going forward?

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 19/02/2024

Our internal guidelines state the following:

"We work as much as possible in teams and as little as possible alone.

We take breaks, both during the workday and at home by encouraging «logging off.»

We encourage having separate social media accounts for work, so that we also digitally separate work and leisure.

We turn off sound when it's not needed in verification work.

We shift our gaze or blur the most graphic parts when verifying.

We try to prepare each other if we're going to share particularly strong images.

We remind ourselves of the purpose of the work, that it is beneficial to society and important.

We debrief with each other and with professionals."

Sabina Schousboe (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 29/02/2024

Thank you for the additional information from your internal guidelines. Following, the rating has been changed to compliant.

Rasmus Kerrn-Jespersen (assessor)

Non Compliant

Date: 05/01/2024

The applicant does not experience that employees are subjected to harassment or traumatized by their work. However, they have had a visit from a union representative to discuss potentially traumatizing photo material related to the war in Ukraine and Israel/Gaza.

To meet best practices, it is required to have guidelines for harassment and traumatizing content, as well as a preparedness plan if the need arises. The applicant's description does not appear to meet these criteria.

Applicant

Non Compliant

Date: 19/02/2024

Our internal guidelines state the following:

"We work as much as possible in teams and as little as possible alone.

We take breaks, both during the workday and at home by encouraging «logging off.»

We encourage having separate social media accounts for work, so that we also digitally separate work and leisure.

We turn off sound when it's not needed in verification work.

We shift our gaze or blur the most graphic parts when verifying.

We try to prepare each other if we're going to share particularly strong images.

We remind ourselves of the purpose of the work, that it is beneficial to society and important.

We debrief with each other and with professionals."

Article 3.3: Honest corrections

In order to be recognised as a verified member of the European Fact-Checking Standards Network (EFCSN), operations must:

Applicant

Date: 30/10/2023

There are no examples of this.

Sabina Schousboe (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 12/01/2024

This practice it not further outlined in the methodology section than what is already covered by the more general 3.3.A. The application states that no prior examples exist. However, the organization has an account on Twitter, which according to the EFCSN guidelines doesn't allow edits of posts, causing such event to potentially happen in the future.

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 25/01/2024

We agree with this comment and will update our corrections policy accordingly.

Sabina Schousboe (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 29/02/2024

Expecting the above-mentioned policy update, the rating has been changed to compliant.

Rasmus Kerrn-Jespersen (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 06/01/2024

This is not relevant as it is possible to make corrections in the applicant's publications.

Applicant

Date: 30/10/2023

There was no such error.

Sabina Schousboe (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 12/01/2024

The specific practice of explaining the circumstances that allowed the error to occur is not outlined in the methodology. The correction of any error and the dissemination hereof is still covered following from the more general 3.3.A. The application states that no prior examples exist.

The question of whether a mistake is 'substantial' and 'fundamental' is definitely one of judgement. In review of some of the organizations error corrections, I would encourage reflection on the 3.3.C requirement in relation to this article: https://www.faktisk.no/artikler/jdp6r/riktig-om-skole. in which the heading (and conclusion?) have been changed from "Three correct, and one small mistake about schools" to "Correct about schools".

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 19/02/2024

We are adding the following to our methodology section:

"The starting point is Paragraph 4.13 of the Vær Varsom-plakaten: «Incorrect information shall be corrected and, if necessary, an apology shall be given as soon as possible.»

When errors are detected, they are immediately corrected in the text, and the process is noted in the changelog located at the bottom of the article. The changelog should specify what has been corrected, why, when it was corrected, and assess whether an apology is also necessary.

For more serious errors that change the conclusion of the fact-check or the premise of the article, information is added in a frame at the very top of the article, clearly indicating that the content has been corrected post-publication.

If someone's life or health might be harmed by the presence of the corrected article on our website, unpublishing will be considered. In such cases, it will be accompanied by a brief article explaining the decision.

In cases where serious errors are corrected, we will also contact media outlets that have embedded/republished our article to inform them of the error and correction.

For social media posts, the procedures are slightly different. If there is an error in the post itself, it will be corrected. If the article linked to in the post has been corrected, we will update the post with information that the article has been corrected. For video-based social media like Instagram, errors in videos will result in either the deletion of the entire post (with an explanatory post) or the correction of the video, or a clarification added to the post itself. Transparency is the guiding principle, and we will always aim to inform readers of any corrections made."

Sabina Schousboe (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 29/02/2024

Thank you for the elaboration. Expecting the above-stated update, the rating has been changed to compliant.

Rasmus Kerrn-Jespersen (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 06/01/2024

The applicant states that such an example does not exist. The applicant's "Corrections and Complaints" page is deficient in this regard. It says, "Where errors are made on our part, corrections will be published and clarified openly," but it does not mention how substantial errors are addressed or communicated afterward. The applicant should add this information to their procedure for corrections and complaints.

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 19/02/2024

In cases where serious errors are corrected, we will also contact media outlets that have embedded/republished our article to inform them of the error and correction.

Rasmus Kerrn-Jespersen (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 22/02/2024

The necessary addition is not yet reflected on the website. The assessment is changed to compliant with the assumption that the addition will be posted on the website.

Applicant

Date: 30/10/2023

https://www.faktisk.no/endringer

Sabina Schousboe (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 12/01/2024

A corrections policy is available and easily accessible on the organization's website. This policy mentions that a record of corrections is available on the website as well as in an RSS feed, however, - to the best of my ability - I can't find it via the corrections policy nor via the log within the individual fact-checks. Reviewing the application, the record surely exits and contains the required information.

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 19/02/2024

This page seems to have become harder to locate after some changes to the website design, where some internal links appear to have been lost. We'll make it more easily accessible. For now, the full changelog can be viewed here: https://www.faktisk.no/endringer

Sabina Schousboe (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 29/02/2024

Thank you for the clarification. Expecting the above-mentioned follow up action, the rating has been changed to compliant.

Rasmus Kerrn-Jespersen (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 06/01/2024

The applicant has a comprehensive overview of adjustments made in articles, but it is challenging to locate. Therefore, the applicant should ensure that there is a link from the "Complaints and Corrections" page to the overview of changes.

Sabina Schousboe (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 12/01/2024

The publicly available corrections policy contains information on how to act should one believe they have been affected by wrongful publication. This includes both contacting the organization as well as the option to complain via external actors, such as the Norwegian Press Association and IFCN, thus displaying compliance with this standard.

Rasmus Kerrn-Jespersen (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 06/01/2024

The applicant should expand this part of the procedure.

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 19/02/2024

Should we expand on this beyond what can be found in the section "Rettelser og klager" (Corrections and complaints) found here: https://www.faktisk.no/slik-jobber-vi ?

Rasmus Kerrn-Jespersen (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 22/02/2024

Yes. The criterion is as follows:

Your fact-checking operation’s corrections policy should include an explanation of how
requests from the public for a correction are assessed. For instance, some organisations
may use an external independent reviewer for complaints, while others may have an
internal process.

There is no description of the procedure under 'corrections and complaints'.

Best Practices:

In addition to the required standards listed above, the Code identifies the following as best practices that are encouraged but not required to join the EFCSN.

Article 4.1: Organisational transparency

In order to be recognised as a verified member of the European Fact-Checking Standards Network (EFCSN), operations must:

Applicant

Date: 30/10/2023

https://www.faktisk.no/om-oss
https://www.faktisk.no/vedtekter-etikkregler-og-faktasjekkplakaten

Sabina Schousboe (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 12/01/2024

On their website, the organization provides brief information on the governance of the operation, e.g. through an overview of statutes for the company Faktisk.no AS. However, some further details could potentially be added. For example, the website doesn't detail: the names of the company's board members; information on general meetings; and information on decision mandate and tasks for the board.

Sabina Schousboe (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 12/01/2024

Following later review of the section 'Staff', I found here a list of names of the company' board members.

Sabina Schousboe (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 23/01/2024

Following guidance from the EFCSN team, the EFCSN's perspective is that this is not a requirement in the EFCSN code, thus, the assessment has been changed to 'compliant'.

Rasmus Kerrn-Jespersen (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 06/01/2024

It is clear on the applicant's website how the organization is governed. However, to find information about the board, one needs to go under 'Employees' and not follow the link provided by the applicant.

Proof of registration/legal status:

Sabina Schousboe (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 12/01/2024

Documentation attached.

Rasmus Kerrn-Jespersen (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 06/01/2024

A comprehensive document is attached.

Proof of ownership:

Sabina Schousboe (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 12/01/2024

Documentation attached above

Rasmus Kerrn-Jespersen (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 06/01/2024

A comprehensive document is attached.

Proof of governance structure:

Sabina Schousboe (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 12/01/2024

Documentation attached above

Rasmus Kerrn-Jespersen (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 06/01/2024

A comprehensive document is attached and is available on the website.

Article 4.2: Financial transparency and conflicts of interest

In order to be recognised as a verified member of the European Fact-Checking Standards Network (EFCSN), organisations or parent organisations must:

Best Practices

In addition to the required standards listed above, the Code identifies the following as a best practice that is encouraged but not required to join the EFCSN.

I. ELIGIBILITY TO APPLY In order to apply to the EFCSN, your fact-checking operation must first meet the criteria outlined in Chapter 5.2 of the Code.

1. When and why was your fact-checking operation started?

2. How many people work or volunteer in the operation and what are their roles?

3. Please list any activities besides fact-checking that your operation engages in.

4. What are the goals of your fact-checking operation over the coming year?

5. Please explain the geographical scope of your fact-checking operation and how you fit the Code’s requirement to “have a substantial and demonstrable focus on one or more of the countries of the Council of Europe, Kosovo, Belarus or Russia”.

5.b Please provide all the relevant information to demonstrate the existence of “a meaningful connection with the country or countries where the mis- and disinformation your organization fact-check originates from”.

6. Please attach a list of an average of four original fact-checks per month from the past year if this is your first time applying to the EFCSN or from the past two years if you are renewing your application.

7. Please note which policies you have had to change, if any, over the past 6 months in order to comply with the Code.

2.A. Make available and easily accessible on their website an explanation of the process used to select, research and complete investigations, including a definition of any rating systems used.

2.B. Assess the merits of the evidence found using the same standards applied to evidence on equivalent claims, regardless of who made the claim.

2.C. Primarily focus on topics that are in the public interest, defined here as issues that concern the welfare of society or individuals, and be willing to explain, if requested by an assessor, how various investigations fit this definition.

2.D. Make available and easily accessible on their website a channel through which the public can submit possible claims for verification and encourage users to send claims to check, while making it clear what readers can legitimately expect will be fact-checked and what isn’t fact-checkable.

2.E. Identify and include in publications, when possible, access to all evidence or other required information for a reader to replicate the verification process.

2.F. Provide evidence for every pertinent factual statement made in an investigation, relying on primary sources where possible. Set out in its fact checks relevant evidence that appears to support the claim as well as relevant evidence that appears to undermine it.

2.H. Name all sources except when their safety is at risk. In such exceptions, anonymous sources may only be included if the information they provide is corroborated by named sources or material evidence.

2.I. When quoting experts, establish their credibility in the relevant topic.

2.J. Ensure each investigation undergoes at least one round of editing by someone other than the author before publication.

2.K. Present findings in precise, factual and non-emotive language, while taking care not to overstate conclusions.

2.K. Present findings in precise, factual and non-emotive language, while taking care not to overstate conclusions.

3.1.A. Be editorially free and politically independent.

3.1.B. Not endorse or advise the public to vote for any political parties or candidates for public office.

3.1.C. Not conclude any agreement or partnership with a political party or any other public relations and similar activities that could compromise the operation’s reputation for independence and impartiality

3.1.D. Not focus investigations unduly on one particular political party or side of the political spectrum.

3.1.E. Not employ anyone who holds a salaried and/or prominent position in a political party, government, state or public company under the direct control of a political party or government.

3.1.F. Explicitly address in publications any reasonable conflict of interest or political bias, including from experts or organisations cited.

3.1.H. Have internal policies that bar employees from accepting in a professional context any gifts, favours, or services with advantageous conditions that go beyond common social and courtesy items, and have procedures in place to take action if they do.

3.1.I. Make available and easily accessible on their website these and any other non-partisanship policies (See template in Annex 3)

3.1.J. Only advocate for issues that are relevant to the mission of fact-checking and are compatible with a reputation for independence and impartiality. Organisations that engage in advocacy must set out public guidelines on how they adhere to these standards.

3.2.A. Obscure the image and/or identity of subjects of an investigation when there is a reasonable concern for their safety.

3.2.B. Take measures to avoid exposing the source or identity of user-generated disinformation content to undue public scrutiny.

3.2.C. Be restrictive, respectful and considerate when mentioning or identifying minors and make efforts to protect their privacy.

3.2.D. Anonymise any personal information that could allow the harassment of people (i.e. at least partially concealing telephone numbers, IDs or passports, bank account numbers, email addresses…).

3.2.E. When appropriate and possible, a right-of-reply should be offered to any named person or organisation who is the source of the inaccurate claim and/or is the subject of significant criticism or allegations.

3.2.F. Put in place measures that aim to address the risk of trauma or harassment experienced by staff as a result of the operation’s activities, including but not limited to providing training to prevent and identify symptoms.

3.3.A. Correct every known mistake promptly with a correction note in the same publication in which the error was made; if the error is only typographical, grammatical or stylistic, a correction note is not needed.

3.3.B. When the original publication in which the mistake was made is not editable, disseminate the correction in the same format and channel as the original so that as far as possible users of the original see the correction and the corrected version.

3.3.E. Make available and easily accessible on their websites a corrections policy and a record of the corrections published over the previous year in the first application for EFCSN membership and of the previous two years upon renewal.

3.3.F. Include in their corrections policy, available and easily accessible on their websites, a detailed account of how they assess requests for corrections.

3.3.G. Offer audiences direct channels to request a correction, within the corrections policy on their website.

3.3.I. Undergo an internal and documented annual review of published corrections to determine whether methodological and procedural changes should be made to avoid repeating the same mistakes in the future.

3.3.H. Inform audiences of the possibility of submitting a complaint to the EFCSN under the terms of article 6 with a link to the complaint form.

4.1.A. Make available and easily accessible on their website a statement that sets out the applicant’s organisational structure and makes clear how and by whom editorial control is exercised.

4.1.B. Make available and easily accessible on their website regularly updated information related to the ownership and legal status of the operation and/or parent organisation. People or entities holding over 5% of the shares must be disclosed (see template in Annex 4).

4.1.C. Make available and easily accessible on their website regularly updated information related to the governance of the operation and/or the parent organisation (see template in Annex 5).

4.1.D. Provide proof of the ownership, legal status and governance of the organisation to the external assessors

4.1.E. Make available and easily accessible on their website regularly updated information about the identity of the editors or decision makers behind the operation, including any relevant previous roles.

4.1.F. Make available and easily accessible on their website regularly updated information about the positions held by all staff involved in the fact-checking operation’s editorial output, including any relevant previous roles.

4.1.G. Make available and easily accessible on their website a statement setting out the operation’s mission, values and internal guidelines in place to protect its independence.

4.1.H. Make available and easily accessible on their website the organisation’s bylaws, understood as the rules or statutes that govern the members of an organisation.

4.2.A. Disclose all income sources contributing 1% or 5.000 euros (whichever the higher), from the most recent annual accounts when joining and the last two annual accounts when renewing membership, to external assessors and the Governance Body

4.2.D. Make available and easily accessible on their website an updated declaration of all unpaid significant commitments made to other organisations (see Annex 9).

4.2.F. Make available and easily accessible on their website goods and services they receive from external sources, including paid subscriptions or free access to tools, software and/or advertising, that make a material difference to their finances (5% of net income).

4.2.H. Make available and easily accessible on or from their website the full annual accounts of their organisation for each year since joining the EFCSN.