This is the Fact Checking Policy for PhilNetizen, accessible from www.philnetizen.com
At PhilNetizen, we understand the importance of correct and trusted words, headlines, and URLs. Our writers understand the significant power their words have on the greater community.
As such, we are committed to being accurate, clear, and precise with the content published on our platform, including any content that appears in our articles, our social media posts, our URLs, and our headlines. Our team members understand that their stories – including each word they write and statement they report on – can have significant impact and as such they must act responsibly with the power and influence they have.
Our writers at PhilNetizen are required to verify all information they gather for an article by going through multiple steps. These steps include cross-checking any identifiable information (names, identities, locations), eye-witness statements, and any other statements or accounts made in relation to a story. Writers do their own fact-checking using their own judgement and information under the light of our Ethics Policy.
PhilNetizen is ready to and will use fact-checkers both online and within the editorial team in certain circumstances if need be. We are committed to non-partisanship, transparency of sources, transparency of funding, and being open to reasonable criticism and corrections in our organisation. We check the information with all related parties before publishing it online.
If we receive a claim regarding fact-checking on our website, we first contact the source of the claim for further elaboration and supporting information. We also contact individuals and organisations who would have more information about or have relevant experience on the subject at hand, as well as researching relevant literature (news articles, books, interview transcripts, statistical sources, etc) that has bearing on the topic.
We prefer to use unbiased information and data sources viewed by our equals, as much as possible. We also alert our readers that information and data from sources, such as political advocacy organisations and sided parties, should be evaluated considerately.