Is Factually fact based

1. What the question really asks: can “Factually” be treated as a fact‑checking authority?

The underlying query is whether a source named “Factually” meets the standards that reputable fact‑checking groups use — independence, transparency, documented sourcing and nonpartisanship — but the assembled research guide excerpts and lists of fact‑checking sites supplied for review do not include “Factually,” so this set of documents offers no direct evidence about that organization’s practices or reliability ^{[1] [3] [6]}.

2. Benchmarks used to judge fact‑checking outlets

University and library guides repeatedly point readers to common criteria for evaluating fact‑checking sites: check organizational affiliation and funding, look for documented sources and methodology, verify editorial independence, and consult established databases and networks such as the International Fact‑Checking Network or university library lists when deciding trustworthiness ^{[7] [2] [8]}.

3. Who is reliably listed in the provided sources — and what that implies by omission

The sources repeatedly name PolitiFact, FactCheck.org, Snopes, Reuters Fact Check and The Washington Post’s Fact Checker as established players, and one compiled list explicitly catalogs dozens of global fact‑checking sites, implying that recognized outlets are trackable and publicly listed; the absence of “Factually” from these specific directories and guides in this dataset means the claim that “Factually” is fact‑based cannot be verified here ^{[1] [3] [4] [5]}.

4. Two alternative interpretations of the absence of “Factually”

First, “Factually” may be a newer, niche, or regional service that simply wasn’t captured by these particular guides and lists; second, it may be a non‑standard or unvetted site whose omission from curated lists and library guides signals caution until more transparency is shown — the documents reviewed neither confirm nor deny either scenario ^{[6] [8]}.

5. Concrete steps to answer the question definitively

To determine whether “Factually” is fact‑based, apply the same checks these guides recommend: locate an “About” page and editorial policy, identify funding and ownership, inspect citations and methodology on sample articles, see if it’s listed in recognized directories (e.g., the Wikipedia list of fact‑checking websites or the Poynter Institute’s IFCN), and compare its work to established fact‑checkers for consistency; the guides compiled here outline these steps and endorse cross‑checking with established outlets ^{[3] [7] [8]}.

6. Caveats, agendas and the limits of the current reporting

The provided sources are bibliographic and pedagogical: they catalogue reputable fact‑checkers and recommend evaluation techniques, not investigative profiles of every site; consequently, this record cannot be used to assert that “Factually” is or is not fact‑based — that conclusion requires examining “Factually” itself against the standards found in these sources ^{[1] [2] [9]}.