Where does "factually" obtain it's information?
Executive summary
"The Factual" aggregates and scores published reporting to guide readers toward higher-quality information by identifying and ranking sources based on quality metrics; RAND’s Truth Decay project describes it as a process-focused tool that evaluates how information is produced and disseminated and notes the tool is not affiliated with RAND but was selected for the database because it met inclusion criteria [1]. More broadly, factual-information services rely on primary and secondary reference sources—encyclopedias, government data, statistics, and vetted journalism—and on fact‑checking practices like cross‑referencing and documented sourcing to establish verifiable claims [2] [3] [4] [5].
1. What “The Factual” says it uses: curated published reporting
The Factual’s methodology emphasizes identifying higher‑quality sources and balancing perspectives across the political spectrum, meaning much of its information comes from existing journalistic outlets and other published sources that it can evaluate and score for accuracy, objectivity and authority [1]. RAND’s profile of The Factual highlights that it is “process‑focused” and gauges how information is produced and disseminated rather than generating original primary reporting itself, which implies its inputs are other media organizations and public information [1].
2. The kinds of primary and secondary sources these tools rely on
Reference works and government datasets are the backbone of factual claims across research guides: libraries recommend encyclopedias, almanacs, government resources and official statistics as reliable factual resources, and subject‑specific guides point to data compendia such as the CIA World Factbook and national statistical compilations for hard facts [2] [3] [4]. Legal and library research guides likewise stress factual research as searching public records, scientific and medical reports, corporate filings and other non‑legal primary documents that establish baseline facts [6] [4].
3. How information is assessed and verified before being surfaced
Assessment systems like The Factual typically use scoring and metadata to rate source quality—accuracy, objectivity and transparency—while conventional fact‑checking practice demands cross‑checking claims against multiple authoritative sources and documenting citations for readers to verify independently [1] [5] [7]. Fact‑checking websites and research libraries also emphasize documenting sources and creating traceable evidence chains; guides to fact‑checking list sites such as Snopes and Media Bias/Fact Check as tools that document methods so readers can reproduce verification steps [8].
4. What this model leaves out and why that matters
Because tools that “score” information depend on published outputs, they inherit the blind spots and selection choices of their inputs and their own inclusion criteria—RAND explicitly notes The Factual was included in its database based on researchers’ criteria, and The Factual is not RAND‑affiliated, underlining that selection is not neutral but bounded by methodology [1]. Library guides and journalism primers warn readers that source integrity, bias and the evolving currency of facts must be interrogated—what counts as “factual” can vary with context, and some authoritative sources require expert interpretation, which these aggregators may not provide [6] [2].
5. Alternatives and complementary practices for users seeking the raw inputs
To move from an aggregator’s score to the underlying evidence, researchers are advised to consult primary resources directly—government databases, statistical repositories, peer‑reviewed literature and established reference works—and to use independent fact‑checkers and media‑bias tools to triangulate claims rather than rely solely on a scoring layer [4] [8] [9]. Academic and library guides recommend learning what type of information is needed (factual, analytical or subjective) and choosing the right resource accordingly, because that choice determines whether one finds raw facts or interpretation [2] [3].