This methodology was approved at the meeting of the Board of Directors of Verify-Sy platform on November 16, 2020, and any subsequent amendments approved by the Board are bound to announce it.
The following terms, words and expressions have the meaning as follows:
- Platform: Verify-Sy fact-checking platform of Verify Media Foundation
- Methodology: The methodology regulating the work of Verify-Sy platform in the field of fact-finding and combating misinformation.
- Content: All materials, information, data, statements and outputs of media institutions and alternative media websites
- Sources: All media, in all their forms, and accounts on official social media sites, personal and public, and every party works to broadcast content that the platform submits to its verification methodology.
- References: The entities on which the platform relies during the application of the methodology in the process of analyzing and evaluating the content and is clearly presented when applying methodology mechanism.
- Second: The methodology application mechanism
Determining Content, Determining the Source / resources, Content Analysis, Content Evaluation, Conclusion.
- Third: Content Analysis - References
- Data and statistics from independent, impartial and credible.
- Information received from official and unofficial institutions and personalities.
- Responses and comments of entities and personalities related to the content.
- The opinions of independent experts scientifically and professionally related directly to the subject matter of the content.
- The alternative sources are required to verify their validity by two different independent sources.
- Forth: Content analysis - Mechanisms
- The analyst's skills and professional experience, such as investigative and technical skills, his\her ability from the standards and principles of journalistic work, his\her general culture, and his\her keenness to follow developments from their reliable sources up to date.
- Accurate content-identification without fragmentation.
- Determine the original content, its source and date of publication, and the sources that republished it, in whole or in part, and indicating that with date of re-publication.
- Dealing with content for the purpose of finding facts is in the light of the terms of reference for the analysis.
- Highlighting the proven facts in an integrated manner, in addition to the facts that contradict the content of the subject of analysis.
- Mention the reasons and backgrounds for the sources to repost, if any.
- Evaluation and conclusion.
- Fifth: Content evaluation
- Basic classifications
- First degree: Red indication > High risk > Scam.
- Second degree: Orange > medium risk > Futility.
- Third degree: Yellow > Low risk > Confounding
- Sixth: Content evaluation
Content that is completely inconsistent with proven facts, completely authored and unfounded.
Content that contains a mixture of facts and lies.
Content that is keen to include hidden plans for a plot and builds on this basis to support some approach or conclusion, without clear and proven evidence or evidence.
Lying in the name of science:
Content that invokes science through unproven evidence, incorrect "scientific theories", or seeks to misrepresent a correct scientific interpretation to attract audience interest.
Content that contains false information as long as it does not affect the entire content.
Selective content, which includes fact-cutting or preference for specific facts removed from their general context.
Manipulation of facts:
Content that is based on facts but is employed in an incorrect context, in order to reflect these facts.
Content that includes information in which the title suggests content different from the article, such as yellow headlines aimed at attracting the audience.
Content that uses fantasy and a satirical representation of reality, noting that in the original content and omitting it in the event of re-publication.
Out of context:
Old, correct content that conjures up with a similar new event, so that old content appears as part of the new event.
Content that does not have enough ingredients to confirm nor for itself and categorize it within any type of evaluation.