FactCheck.org
Fact-checking website
FactCheck.org is a nonprofit website that provides original research on misinformation and hoaxes with the stated aim of reducing "the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics". It is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania and is funded primarily by the Annenberg Foundation.
Kathleen Hall Jamieson's 1993 book Dirty Politics, in which she criticized the presidential campaigns of George H. W. Bush and Michael Dukakis in 1988, provided the idea for FactCheck.org. Most of its content consists of rebuttals to inaccurate, misleading, or false claims made by politicians. FactCheck.org has also targeted misinformation from various political action committees. Other features include:
Ask FactCheck, where users can ask questions that are usually based on an online rumor.
Viral Spiral, a page dedicated to the most popular online myths that the site has debunked. It clarifies the answer as well as links readers to a full article on the subject.
Party Lines, talking points that have been repeatedly used by multiple members of a political party.
Mailbag, a page publishing readers' letters, including praise or criticism of the site's content.
The public source identifies “FactCheck.org” as fact-checking website. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around FactCheck, Fact-checking and website.
Why this record matters
A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “FactCheck.org”, the useful work is to connect “fact-checking website” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.
Vocabulary and entity names are the principal evidence signals here, because they determine the precision of every later search. The source revision retrieved here is dated Sep 11, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q5428664. None of the 1 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1993 and 1988.
Overview language is designed for orientation and should not be treated as a substitute for the evidence cited beneath it. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “FactCheck.org”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow FactCheck.org primary sources, FactCheck.org archive and FactCheck research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “FactCheck.org”?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “FactCheck.org” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.