Review method
How a report is reviewed
A report starts a review. It does not decide the outcome. Every report is categorised, assessed against the best available evidence and closed with a recorded outcome, including when the answer is that nothing needs to change.
The five stages
- Receipt. The report is stored with its reference, the exact page and version reported, and the time. You see the reference on screen.
- Triage. The report is placed in one of the seven categories below. Duplicates and obviously malicious submissions are identified here.
- Evidence assessment. The claim on the page and the concern in the report are both checked against the best available sources.
- Outcome. The page is corrected, clarified, given context or left unchanged, and the reason is recorded.
- Record. The outcome is added to the report’s sealed record. The record never contains a published copy of the reporter’s identity.
Disagreement is not error: the seven categories
| Category | What it means | Usual outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Factual error | A statement that the evidence shows to be wrong. | Corrected. |
| Outdated fact | Accurate when published, overtaken since. | Updated, with the date of the change. |
| Misleading omission or presentation | Each statement may be true, but what is left out, or how it is shown, gives a false impression. | Clarified or given context. |
| Disputed interpretation | Reasonable experts read the same evidence differently. | The dispute may be acknowledged; a defensible reading is not removed. |
| Opinion | A view, clearly presented as a view. | No change; comment is not error. |
| Malicious report | A report made to harass, to disrupt, or in bad faith. | Recorded and closed. |
| Unsupported allegation | A concern with no evidence offered and none found. | Recorded and closed, and reopened if evidence arrives. |
Evidence standards
- Primary before secondary. The study, dataset, judgment or official record itself outranks a description of it.
- Who, how and when. A source is weighed by its author’s standing and independence, by its method, by its date, and by whether others corroborate it.
- Relevance. Evidence has to address the specific statement reported, not the topic in general.
- Proportion. The more consequential the statement, the stronger the evidence expected on both sides.
- Comment, conjecture and fact are kept apart. A page may argue a position; it may not present a conjecture as established fact.
What is promised, and what is not
Every substantive report is reviewed. What DIGOSAR promises is review, evidence assessment and correction where warranted. It does not promise removal because something was reported, and it does not treat the number of reports as evidence: one well-evidenced report outweighs many unsupported ones.
Commercial considerations play no part. A report is not suppressed, prioritised or handled differently because the page sells something or because the report concerns commercial material.
Sources
- Wardle, C. and Derakhshan, H. (2017). Information Disorder: Toward an interdisciplinary framework for research and policy making. Council of Europe report DGI(2017)09. https://rm.coe.int/information-disorder-toward-an-interdisciplinary-framework-for-researc/168076277c
- Independent Press Standards Organisation. Editors’ Code of Practice, Clause 1 (Accuracy). https://www.ipso.co.uk/editors-code-of-practice/
- International Fact-Checking Network. Code of Principles: the commitments. https://ifcncodeofprinciples.poynter.org/the-commitments