Effective date: 07 October 2025 Entity: Faharas – Dubai, United Arab Emirates
1. Purpose
The Faharas FactCheck Guidelines establish the methods, principles, and ethical standards used by our editorial team and contributors to evaluate the accuracy of public information.
These guidelines ensure that every claim published on Faharas.net undergoes a consistent, transparent, and human-verified review process.
Our goal: to help readers understand what is true, what is false, and what remains uncertain — through verified evidence and public accountability.
2. Scope
Fact-checking applies to all news summaries, reports, and claims appearing on Faharas.net, including:
- Statements made by public figures or organizations.
- Viral claims circulating on social media.
- Headlines or reports from other publishers.
- Information from government, business, or scientific sources.
Fact-checking is conducted in multiple languages (starting with Arabic and English) and follows the same editorial principles across all regions.
3. FactCheck Workflow
Every fact-checked article follows the Faharas Verification Workflow, a six-stage human review model designed to ensure traceability from intake to final verdict.
Stage 1 – Automated Ingest
Content is collected from verified news wires, official statements, or partner feeds. Automation identifies duplicates and timestamps the source material.
Stage 2 – AI Triage
AI tools assist editors in flagging inconsistencies, repeated narratives, or data anomalies. No automated tool writes or rates claims; humans make all editorial judgments.
Stage 3 – Primary Verification
Editors manually compare claims with primary sources such as official statements, documents, or data repositories. Direct evidence takes priority over secondary reporting.
Stage 4 – Secondary Review
A second editor or fact-checker independently verifies the evidence, ensuring neutrality and accuracy. Conflicting data is discussed and resolved through documented consensus.
Stage 5 – Classification
After review, the claim receives a final accuracy verdict (see Section 5). The classification is reviewed by at least two human editors before publication.
Stage 6 – Trust Score Update
Verified outcomes contribute to the ongoing source reliability index displayed on the Faharas public dashboard. This helps readers assess how often a given source has been accurate in the past.
4. Workflow Status (FactCheck Progress)
Each story includes a visible FactCheck Status Label, showing how far it has advanced in the verification process:
- Not Checked – Claim has not yet been reviewed.
- Queued – Logged and awaiting review.
- In Progress – Human fact-checking is underway.
- Partially Verified – Some claims verified; others pending.
- Unverifiable – Reliable evidence insufficient for confirmation.
- Completed – Fully reviewed with a published verdict.
These labels are displayed in every fact-check report for transparency and reader awareness.
5. Classification System (Final Verdicts)
Each verified claim receives one of the following nine editorial verdicts, determined by evidence strength and context:
Verdict | Definition |
---|---|
True | The claim is accurate and supported by verified, credible evidence. |
False | The claim is factually incorrect and unsupported by reliable sources. |
Misleading | The claim contains a mix of truth and falsehood, presented in a deceptive or distorted manner. |
Selective | The claim is technically true but omits essential context or presents only partial facts. |
Exaggerated | The claim overstates or dramatizes facts beyond the available evidence. |
Outdated | The claim was once accurate but is no longer valid due to changed circumstances or updated information. |
Satire | The claim originated from humor, parody, or non-factual content. |
Myth | The claim is based on unfounded belief, superstition, or folklore rather than evidence. |
Unproven | The claim is plausible but lacks sufficient verification to confirm or reject it. |
All verdicts must be human-assigned and approved by at least two editors before publication. No verdict is ever issued solely by automation.
6. Transparency Indicators
Each fact-check report must include:
- A clear claim statement summarizing what was verified.
- A sources list with links or references to all supporting evidence.
- The reviewer names or editorial roles (where applicable).
- A timestamp showing when the check was completed.
- A correction log if the verdict changes after publication.
These elements form part of the Faharas Editorial Transparency Framework.
7. Corrections and Updates
Faharas maintains a public Corrections Log for every fact-check that is later revised.
If an error or omission is discovered, the correction includes:
- Date and time of update.
- Editor responsible for review.
- Description of the change.
Readers can report potential corrections at [email protected] or via the Corrections Form.
8. Source Evaluation
Each fact-check must rely on reliable, traceable, and independently verifiable sources, such as:
- Official government or institutional documents.
- Peer-reviewed research or recognized data repositories.
- Reputable news agencies or organizations with proven accuracy.
- On-record statements from named experts or witnesses.
Anonymous or single-source claims are marked as “Unverified” until confirmed through secondary evidence.
9. Independence and Impartiality
Faharas’s fact-checking process operates under strict independence:
- No political, corporate, or ideological influence is accepted.
- Editors and contributors disclose any potential conflicts of interest.
- Financial relationships never affect verdicts or coverage.
The project is non-profit and volunteer-run, ensuring that verification is guided only by truth and evidence.
10. Use of AI in Fact-Checking
AI tools may support the workflow through:
- Duplicate detection.
- Source comparison.
- Keyword and metadata analysis.
AI is never used to determine accuracy or verdicts. All editorial conclusions are human-approved.
See our AI Policy for full transparency on AI use.
11. Reader Engagement
Faharas encourages readers to participate in verification by:
- Suggesting topics or claims to check.
- Submitting corrections or missing sources.
- Reviewing transparency logs and update records.
Readers can submit a suggestion via the Contact Form or email [email protected].
12. Accountability and Oversight
Each published fact-check is reviewed by at least two human editors. Editorial accountability is maintained through:
- Public correction history.
- Named editor attribution.
- Regular audits of random samples by senior reviewers.
Violations of verification standards are addressed internally through editorial review and retraining.
13. Related Policies
This document should be read in conjunction with:
Together, they form the Faharas Verification and Transparency Framework.
14. Contact
For questions, corrections, or verification collaboration:
Email: [email protected] Corrections: [email protected] Form: Corrections Form
Entity: Faharas – Dubai, United Arab Emirates
Last updated: 07 October 2025