The FactCheckHub verify information whether text or visual or audio uttered or shared in public spaces or public mediums like social media, TV, Radio and so on.

Such information could be from government officials – elected and non-elected, celebrities, public figures, interest groups and so on.

  1. To avoid verifying opinions we ask if the claim – text, audio, video, statement – is based on verifiable fact.
  2. The claim must be one that is capable of leaving a particular impression that may be misleading to members of the public.
  3. It must also be of significance.
  4. The claim must be something likely to be shared by others.
  5. It must be something that would make an average person wonder if it is true or not.

As an independent non-profit media organisation, the FactCheckHub is deliberate and strategic while sourcing for claims.

Social media platforms serve as major sources of claims, whether it is true or false. These assertions can come in form of tweets on Twitter, Facebook posts, WhatsApp viral messages and lots more.

Claims from speeches and posts on Instagram and YouTube accounts, websites and blogs are also a good sources for claims. We are mindful of trending claims and those that have generated reactions, using our social media monitoring tools.

Beyond these strategies, the FactCheckHub reaches out to different groups on social media to present suspected claims, misinformation and unverified information considered untrue or misleading.

In sourcing these claims, however, we try to ensure that unpopular claims or tweets shared by individuals with insignificant followers are archived but not fact-checked immediately. This is to deliberately avoid amplifying claims that do not have potential to spread fast.

We also encourage readers to suggest claims via email to info@factcheckhub.com and a dedicated WhatsApp number; we often fact-check statements submitted by the readers, after selecting the most significant ones among them.

The role of sources in verifying claims cannot be overemphasised. At FactCheckHub, we value our sources, especially the human sources, which include experts from different fields of endeavour. Aside from policy documents, reports, human sources have been our major source of validating claims and they are fully identified by name and designation/title in our published reports.

We also try to keep every interview with our sources on – the -record, thus allowing readers to see or hear the source’s exact words and know who the source is.

Generally, our claim reviewing process entails checking what other fact-checkers have done regarding any claim; carrying out a thorough Google search on the topic and extensive search of relevant online and offline databases; consultation with a variety of experts; a preliminary review of the written report and all evidence obtained. Thereafter, we conduct a final review of available evidence and crosscheck the written report before publishing on our website.

The FactCheckHub, as an independent platform adopts non-ambiguous, clear and concise rating for its fact-check reports.

After concluding the research, we then give a verdict that clearly reflects our findings.

Below are our rating patterns for our FACT GAUGE METRE RATING:

  1. True
  2. Mostly true
  3. False
  4. Mostly false
  5. Misleading
  1. True

This rating indicates that the primary elements of a claim is accurate and there is nothing significant missing.

  1. Mostly True

This rating indicates that the primary elements of a claim is accurate but needs additional clarifications as some of the auxiliary details surrounding the claim may be inaccurate.

  1. False

This rating indicates that the primary elements of a claim are verifiably false.

  1. Mostly False

This rating indicates that the primary elements of a claim are verifiably false, but some of the auxiliary elements surrounding the claim may be accurate.

  1. Miscaptioned/Misleading

This rating is used in connection with media elements like photographs, inforgraphs, videos etc. Here the media elements are real and not manipulated but they are placed in a wrong context or accompanied with a false explanation.

FactCheckHub is ethically committed to factual verification of information. Done through our multilayer editing and cross-checking process, we try as much as possible to avoid mistakes. But, once a mistake arises, we take responsibility by verifying the error and, once validated, we make the appropriate corrections and publicly declare so.

So, if there are errors of fact or any kind you feel we have made, kindly call our attention to it through info@factcheckhub.com.

You may as well share your comments, feedback or corrections through the same email.

Our correction process is transparent. First, we acknowledge and send a feedback.

The verification date, sources contacted and appropriate hyperlink to authenticate the new information provided is included in the edited report. It is effected and labelled as either an “Update” or “Correction”.

If you still have additional concerns beyond the correction made, don’t hesitate to reach out as we run a transparent and open policy for the public good. The concerns would be addressed by our superior appropriate professionals.

FactCheckHub seeks claims from speeches by public figures in general, without biases or preferences for their ideological, political, sexual, racial, or religious affiliation.

We do not subject opinions or statements of commitments to verification, unless they are supported by data which can be verified.

Also, we do not verify allegations of corruption, as these are handled by the relevant authorities.

At FactCheckHub, we do not use anonymous sources. Our sources are often identified and cited in our reports. When consulting experts on any claim, we often do so with the aim that your knowledge, data and information confirm or refute the phrase checked, not to spread your personal opinions.

As a matter of policy, we do not issue opinions because we neither defend any ideology, nor do we carry out political or any kind of activism or campaign. We only rate the claim and not the person who said it, as we don’t judge personal attitude.