What are the sources used by factually.co for fact-checking?
Executive summary
Available sources provided by the user contain only a single result: FactCheck.org. The search snippet shows example fact-checks and site messaging (e.g., debunking a $2,000 tariff-check claim, noting Walmart’s 2025 Thanksgiving meal changes) but does not list or describe Factually.co’s specific sources or methodology for fact-checking [1]. Available sources do not mention Factually.co’s source list or other fact-check partners.
1. What the supplied source actually is — FactCheck.org, not Factually.co
The single supplied search result points to FactCheck.org, a long-established fact-checking website that publishes Q&As and debunks political and consumer claims; the snippet includes an item on a claimed $2,000 tariff-based payment and another on Walmart’s 2025 Thanksgiving meal [1]. The extract shows typical content types (claim-and-response format, contextual economic commentary) and fundraising language but does not connect FactCheck.org to Factually.co or enumerate any sources used by a site named Factually.co [1].
2. What you asked vs. what the sources show — a clear gap
You asked: “What are the sources used by factually.co for fact-checking?” The provided material does not mention factually.co at all; it only shows FactCheck.org content examples. Therefore, the documents available do not answer your question about Factually.co’s sources or methods [1]. Any statement about Factually.co’s sources cannot be supported by the supplied materials.
3. How FactCheck.org works — implied context from the snippet
Although the snippet is brief, it demonstrates FactCheck.org’s typical approach: identify a circulating claim (e.g., proposed $2,000 tariff-based checks), evaluate legislative or fiscal feasibility, and cite expert opinion or public records to reach a verdict [1]. The snippet also shows nonpolitical consumer fact checks (e.g., Walmart meal pricing) and standard site features like appeals for donations, implying a mix of policy, economy, and consumer reporting [1]. This gives you an example of how a mainstream fact-checker formats work, but it is not evidence of Factually.co’s practices.
4. Why source transparency matters — and what to look for on a fact-check site
Transparent fact-checkers typically publish source lists, methodology pages, and links to primary documents so readers can verify claims themselves. The supplied FactCheck.org snippet illustrates the end product (claims and rebuttals) but does not show its methodology or bibliography here; if you need to evaluate Factually.co, seek a dedicated “About” or “Methodology” page on that site or look for in-article citations and links to primary documents [1]. The current reporting does not supply Factually.co’s internal sources, so confirmation must come from that site or additional reporting.
5. Next steps and suggested verification actions
To determine Factually.co’s sources: (a) visit factually.co and look for pages labeled “About,” “Methodology,” or “Sources”; (b) check individual fact-check articles for inline citations and links to primary documents; (c) compare Factually.co’s claims against other established fact-checkers such as FactCheck.org to see whether they cite the same primary sources [1]. The supplied search results do not include this material, so these actions are necessary to fill the information gap [1].
Limitations: The only document you supplied is a FactCheck.org search result snippet; it does not mention Factually.co or list any source inventory for that site, so I cannot report specifics about Factually.co’s sources from the available material [1].