Factcheck your own website fully

1. What established fact‑checkers do and why that matters

FactCheck.org, PolitiFact, Reuters Fact Check, Snopes, Full Fact and DW run systematic fact‑checks of public claims, publish sourcing and corrections, and aim for transparency about methods — their presence in reporting shows a recognized standard for labeling, sourcing and correcting factual claims ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]}. If you want your site “fully fact‑checked,” these organizations provide models: clear citation of primary documents, linking to data, and explicit ratings or rulings when possible ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

2. Why “fact‑checking a website” is not a single, uniform task

There are many legitimate approaches: line‑by‑line verification of claims against primary sources; sampling by topic (health, economics, policy); or meta‑reviews that audit methodology, corrections policy and conflict‑of‑interest disclosures. Media Bias/Fact Check (MBFC) even curates and rates other fact‑checks, showing that a checklist approach (credibility of sources, transparency, correction practices) matters as much as individual item rulings ^{[7] [8] [9] [10]}.

3. What to audit first: transparency, sourcing and corrections

Established fact‑checkers make their standards and corrections visible. For example, FactCheck.org and PolitiFact emphasize transparency and thorough reporting and display their fact‑check archive and methodology online ^{[1] [2]}. Reuters publishes category pages and context notes for disputed claims, and DW highlights in‑depth techniques for exposing viral falsehoods ^{[3] [6]}. Audit your site the same way: do pieces cite primary documents? Are methods explained? Is there a corrections policy?

4. Common pitfalls that professional fact‑checkers flag

Fact‑check outlets repeatedly highlight misleading context, omitted caveats, and recycled inaccuracies as frequent problems. Reuters’s coverage of miscontextualized social posts and PolitiFact’s emphasis on ratings show that the same underlying data can produce different public impressions depending on framing ^{[3] [2]}. Your site should watch for cherry‑picking, mismatched timeframes, and claims that hinge on contested estimates.

5. How to use external fact‑checkers to validate your reporting

If you want independent validation, submit specific claims or articles to fact‑checking organizations or invite third‑party audits; MBFC compiles fact checks and evaluates fact‑checkers, indicating a market for third‑party review and cross‑checking ^{[7] [8] [9]}. Alternatively, mirror the transparency practices of FactCheck.org and Full Fact: publish sourcing, explain methodology and keep an accessible corrections archive ^{[1] [5]}.

6. Limits and competing viewpoints you must consider

Different fact‑checkers sometimes reach different conclusions about the same claim because of source selection, threshold for “misleading,” or available evidence; PolitiFact and Reuters illustrate the need to present competing evidence and explain judgment calls when they occur ^{[2] [3]}. Available sources do not mention your site specifically, so no direct findings about its accuracy can be made here (not found in current reporting).

7. Practical next steps to “fully fact‑check” your site

1) Inventory claims and tag each by topic and date; 2) For each claim, require at least one primary source and an independent corroboration; 3) Publish methodology and a corrections policy modeled on FactCheck.org and Full Fact; 4) Consider an external review by a recognized fact‑checking organization or a meta‑checker such as MBFC ^{[1] [5] [7]}. These steps align with how professional fact‑checkers operate.

8. Final assessment and transparency warning

You cannot claim your site is “fully fact‑checked” without documenting the process and allowing external scrutiny; the referenced organizations show transparency and public correction as the core markers of credibility ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]}. Because none of the provided sources mention a fact‑check of your specific site, any definitive statement about its overall accuracy would be unsupported by the current reporting (not found in current reporting).