Editing Fact-checking (section)

=== Limitations and controversies ===

Research has shown that fact-checking has limits, and can even backfire,<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Nyhan |first1=Brendan |last2=Reifler |first2=Jason |date=2010 |title=When Corrections Fail: The Persistence of Political Misperceptions |url=http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11109-010-9112-2 |journal=Political Behavior |language=en |volume=32 |issue=2 |pages=303–330 |doi=10.1007/s11109-010-9112-2 |issn=0190-9320|url-access=subscription }}</ref> which is when a correction increases the belief in the misconception.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Swire-Thompson |first1=Briony |last2=DeGutis |first2=Joseph |last3=Lazer |first3=David |date=2020 |title=Searching for the backfire effect: Measurement and design considerations. |journal=Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition |language=en |volume=9 |issue=3 |pages=286–299 |doi=10.1016/j.jarmac.2020.06.006 |issn=2211-369X |pmc=7462781 |pmid=32905023}}</ref> One reason is that it can be interpreted as an [[argument from authority]], leading to resistance and hardening beliefs, "because identity and cultural positions cannot be disproved."<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Diaz Ruiz |first1=Carlos |last2=Nilsson |first2=Tomas |date=2023 |title=Disinformation and Echo Chambers: How Disinformation Circulates on Social Media Through Identity-Driven Controversies |url=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/07439156221103852 |journal=Journal of Public Policy & Marketing |language=en |volume=42 |issue=1 |pages=18–35 |doi=10.1177/07439156221103852 |issn=0743-9156}}</ref> In other words "while news articles can be fact-checked, personal beliefs cannot."<ref>{{Cite web |last=Diaz Ruiz |first=Carlos |date=2022-06-27 |title=I watched hundreds of flat-Earth videos to learn how conspiracy theories spread – and what it could mean for fighting disinformation |url=https://theconversation.com/i-watched-hundreds-of-flat-earth-videos-to-learn-how-conspiracy-theories-spread-and-what-it-could-mean-for-fighting-disinformation-184589 |access-date=2024-08-31 |website=The Conversation |language=en-US}}</ref>

Critics argue that political fact-checking is increasingly used as [[opinion journalism]].<ref name="Reason – Robby Soave – 7/29/2022">{{cite web |last1=Soave |first1=Robby |title=Facebook, Instagram Posts Flagged as False for Rejecting Biden's Recession Wordplay |url=https://reason.com/2022/07/29/recession-facebook-fact-check-biden-politifact/ |website=reason.com |date=29 July 2022 |publisher=Reason |access-date=1 August 2022}}</ref><ref name=":8">{{cite news|last1=Riddell|first1=Kelly|title=Eight examples where 'fact-checking' became opinion journalism|url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/sep/26/eight-examples-where-fact-checking-became-opinion-/|access-date=27 September 2016|work=[[The Washington Times]]|date=26 September 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160926194240/http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/sep/26/eight-examples-where-fact-checking-became-opinion-/|archive-date=26 September 2016|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name=":9">{{cite book|last1=Graves|first1=Lucas|title=[[Deciding What's True: The Rise of Political Fact-Checking in American Journalism]]|date=2016|publisher=[[Columbia University Press]]|page=[https://books.google.com/books?id=VcGlDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA27 27]|isbn=9780231542227}}</ref> Criticism has included that fact-checking organizations in themselves are biased or that it is impossible to apply absolute terms such as "true" or "false" to inherently debatable claims.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.npr.org/2012/01/10/144974110/political-fact-checking-under-fire|title=Political Fact-Checking Under Fire|website=NPR.org|language=en|access-date=2020-01-19|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180816205948/https://www.npr.org/2012/01/10/144974110/political-fact-checking-under-fire|archive-date=16 August 2018|url-status=live}}</ref> In September 2016, a [[Rasmussen Reports]] national telephone and online survey found that "just 29% of all Likely U.S. Voters trust media fact-checking of candidates' comments. Sixty-two percent (62%) believe instead that news organizations skew the facts to help candidates they support."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/september_2016/voters_don_t_trust_media_fact_checking|title=Voters Don't Trust Media Fact-Checking |first=Rasmussen|last=Reports|access-date=17 October 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161012110756/http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/september_2016/voters_don_t_trust_media_fact_checking|archive-date=12 October 2016|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://thehill.com/media/298747-poll-voters-dont-trust-media-fact-checkers/|title=Poll: Voters don't trust media fact-checkers|first=Tristan|last=Lejeune|date=30 September 2016|access-date=17 October 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161004135047/http://thehill.com/media/298747-poll-voters-dont-trust-media-fact-checkers|archive-date=4 October 2016|url-status=live}}</ref>

A paper by Andrew Guess (of Princeton University), [[Brendan Nyhan]] (Dartmouth College) and Jason Reifler (University of Exeter) found that consumers of fake news tended to have less favorable views of fact-checking, in particular Trump supporters.<ref name=":5">{{Cite web|url=http://www.dartmouth.edu/~nyhan/fake-news-2016.pdf|title=Selective Exposure to Misinformation: Evidence from the consumption of fake news during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180102163017/http://www.dartmouth.edu/~nyhan/fake-news-2016.pdf|archive-date=2 January 2018|url-status=live}}</ref> The paper found that fake news consumers rarely encountered fact-checks: "only about half of the Americans who visited a [[fake news website]] during the study period also saw any fact-check from one of the dedicated fact-checking website (14.0%)."<ref name=":5" />

Deceptive websites that pose as fact-checkers have also been used to promote [[disinformation]]; this tactic has been used by both Russia and Turkey.<ref name="Moshirnia">{{cite journal |last1=Moshirnia |first1=Andrew |date=2020 |title=Who Will Check the Checkers? False Factcheckers and Memetic Misinformation |url=https://dc.law.utah.edu/ulr/vol2020/iss4/5/ |journal=Utah Law Review |volume=2020 |issue=4 |pages=1029–1073 |issn=0042-1448 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230713134229/https://dc.law.utah.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1270&context=ulr |archive-date=2023-07-13}}</ref>

During the [[COVID-19 pandemic]], [[Facebook]] announced it would "remove false or debunked claims about the novel coronavirus which created a global pandemic",<ref>{{cite news |title=Facebook reverses course, won't ban lab virus theory |url=https://news.yahoo.com/facebook-reverses-course-wont-ban-153441867.html |work=news.yahoo.com}}</ref> based on its fact-checking partners, collectively known as the [[International Fact-Checking Network]].<ref name=BMJ>{{cite journal |last1=Clarke |first1=Laurie |title=Covid-19: Who fact checks health and science on Facebook? |journal=BMJ |date=2021-05-25 |volume=373 |page=n1170 |doi=10.1136/bmj.n1170 |pmid=34035038 |s2cid=235171859 |url=https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n1170 |language=en |issn=1756-1833|doi-access=free }}</ref> In 2021, Facebook reversed its ban on posts speculating the [[COVID-19]] disease originated from Chinese labs,<ref>{{cite news |title=Facebook reverses ban on posts claiming Covid-19 came from Chinese lab |url=https://www.scmp.com/news/world/united-states-canada/article/3135129/coronavirus-facebook-reverses-ban-posts-claiming |work=South China Morning Post |date=2021-05-28 |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=Facebook's reversal on banning claims that covid-19 is man-made could unleash more anti-Asian sentiment |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/05/27/facebook-covid-man-made/ |newspaper=The Washington Post}}</ref> following developments in the [[investigations into the origin of COVID-19]], including claims by the Biden administration, and a letter by eighteen scientists in the journal [[Science (journal)|Science]], saying a new investigation is needed because 'theories of accidental release from a lab and zoonotic spillover both remain viable."<ref>{{cite news |last1=Kessler |first1=Glenn |title=Timeline: How the Wuhan lab-leak theory suddenly became credible |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/05/25/timeline-how-wuhan-lab-leak-theory-suddenly-became-credible/ |access-date=30 May 2021 |newspaper=The Washington Post |date=25 May 2021}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Leonhardt |first1=David |title=The Lab-Leak Theory |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/27/briefing/lab-leak-theory-covid-origins.html |work=The New York Times |date=2021-05-27}}</ref> The policy led to an article by ''[[The New York Post]]'' that suggested a lab leak would be plausible to be initially labeled as "false information" on the platform.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Smith |first1=Ben |title=Is an Activist's Pricey House News? Facebook Alone Decides. |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/25/business/facebook-nypost.html |work=The New York Times |date=2021-04-26}}</ref><ref name=BMJ /><ref>{{cite news |last1=Horwitz |first1=Robert McMillan and Jeff |title=Facebook, Twitter Limit Sharing of New York Post Articles That Biden Disputes |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-twitter-limit-sharing-of-new-york-post-articles-that-biden-disputes-11602736535 |work=The Wall Street Journal |date=2020-10-15}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=New House GOP Wuhan lab report discredits Facebook 'fact checkers' that censored COVID origin claims |url=https://www.foxbusiness.com/media/coronavirus-origin-wuhan-lab-gop-report-facebook-fact-check |work=FOXBusiness.com |date=2021-05-24}}</ref> This reignited debates into the notion of [[scientific consensus]]. In an article published by the medical journal [[The BMJ]], journalist Laurie Clarke said "The contentious nature of these decisions is partly down to how social media platforms define the slippery concepts of [[misinformation]] versus [[disinformation]]. This decision relies on the idea of a scientific consensus. But some scientists say that this smothers heterogeneous opinions, problematically reinforcing a misconception that science is a monolith." [[David Spiegelhalter]], the [[Winton Professor of the Public Understanding of Risk]] at [[Cambridge University]], argued that "behind closed doors, scientists spend the whole time arguing and deeply disagreeing on some fairly fundamental things". Clarke further argued that "The binary idea that scientific assertions are either correct or incorrect has fed into the divisiveness that has characterised the pandemic."<ref name=BMJ />

Several commentators have noted limitations of political post-hoc fact-checking. While interviewing Andrew Hart in 2019 about political fact-checking in the United States, Nima Shirazi and Adam Johnson discuss what they perceive as an unspoken conservative bias framed as neutrality in certain fact-checks, citing [[argument from authority]], "hyper-literal ... scolding [of] people on the left who criticized the assumptions of American imperialism", rebuttals that may not be factual themselves, issues of general [[media bias]], and "the near ubiquitous refusal to identify patterns, trends, and ... intent in politicians' ... false statements". They further argue that political fact-checking focuses exclusively on [[Positive statement|describing facts]] over making [[Normative statement|moral judgments]] (ex., the [[is–ought problem]]), assert that it relies on [[public reason]] to attempt to discredit public figures, and question its effectiveness on [[conspiracy theories]] or [[fascism]].<ref>{{Cite web |last1=Shirazi |first1=Nima |last2=Johnson |first2=Adam |date=2019-07-17 |title=Episode 83: The Unchecked Conservative Ideology of US Media's 'Fact-Check' Verticals |url=https://citationsneeded.medium.com/episode-83-the-unchecked-conservative-ideology-of-us-medias-fact-check-verticals-7d441f4e649b |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210504184044/https://citationsneeded.medium.com/episode-83-the-unchecked-conservative-ideology-of-us-medias-fact-check-verticals-7d441f4e649b |archive-date=2021-05-04 |access-date=2024-01-12 |website=Citations Needed (Medium) |language=en}}</ref>

Likewise, writing in [[The Hedgehog Review]] in 2023, Jonathan D. Teubner and Paul W. Gleason assert that fact-checking is ineffective against [[propaganda]] for at least three reasons: "First, since much of what skillful propagandists say will be true on a literal level, the fact-checker will be unable to refute them. Second, no matter how well-intentioned or convincing, the fact-check will also spread the initial claims further. Third, even if the fact-checker manages to catch a few inaccuracies, the larger picture and suggestion will remain in place, and it is this suggestion that moves minds and hearts, and eventually actions." They also note the very large amount of false information that regularly spreads around the world, overwhelming the hundreds of fact-checking groups; caution that a fact-checker systemically addressing propaganda potentially compromises their objectivity; and argue that even descriptive statements are subjective, leading to conflicting points of view. As a potential step to a solution, the authors suggest the need of a "scientific community" to establish [[Falsifiability|falsifiable theories]], "which in turn makes sense of the facts", noting the difficulty that this step would face in the digital media landscape of the Internet.<ref>{{Cite web |last1=Teubner |first1=Jonathan |last2=Gleason |first2=Paul |date=2023-11-14 |title=You Can't Fact Check Propaganda |url=https://hedgehogreview.com/web-features/thr/posts/you-cant-fact-check-propaganda |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231123173930/https://hedgehogreview.com/web-features/thr/posts/you-cant-fact-check-propaganda |archive-date=2023-11-23 |access-date=2024-01-12 |website=[[The Hedgehog Review]]}}</ref>

Social media platforms – [[Facebook]] in particular – have been accused by journalists and academics of undermining fact-checkers by providing them with little assistance;<ref name="Moshirnia" /><ref>{{Cite news |last=Levin |first=Sam |date=2018-12-13 |title='They don't care': Facebook factchecking in disarray as journalists push to cut ties |url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/dec/13/they-dont-care-facebook-fact-checking-in-disarray-as-journalists-push-to-cut-ties |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181213081003/https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/dec/13/they-dont-care-facebook-fact-checking-in-disarray-as-journalists-push-to-cut-ties |archive-date=2018-12-13 |access-date=2024-01-12 |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}}</ref> including "propagandist-linked organizations"<ref name="Moshirnia" /> such as [[CheckYourFact]] as partners;<ref name="Moshirnia" /><ref>{{Cite news |last=Levin |first=Sam |date=2019-04-18 |title=Facebook teams with rightwing Daily Caller in factchecking program |url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/apr/17/facebook-teams-with-rightwing-daily-caller-in-factchecking-program |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240103005216/https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/apr/17/facebook-teams-with-rightwing-daily-caller-in-factchecking-program |archive-date=2024-01-03 |access-date=2024-01-12 |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}}</ref> promoting outlets that have shared false information such as [[Breitbart]] and [[The Daily Caller]] on [[Feed (Facebook)|Facebook's newsfeed]];<ref name="Moshirnia" /><ref>{{Cite magazine |last=Thompson |first=Nicholas |title=15 Months of Fresh Hell Inside Facebook |url=https://www.wired.com/story/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-15-months-of-fresh-hell/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231203161812/https://www.wired.com/story/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-15-months-of-fresh-hell/ |archive-date=2023-12-03 |access-date=2024-01-12 |magazine=Wired |language=en-US |issn=1059-1028}}</ref> and removing a fact-check about a false anti-abortion claim after receiving pressure from [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican]] senators.<ref name="Moshirnia" /><ref>{{Cite web |last= |first= |date=2019-10-25 |title=Facebook launches a news section – and will pay publishers |url=https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2019-10-25/facebook-launches-news-tab-will-pay-publishers |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221004071844/https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2019-10-25/facebook-launches-news-tab-will-pay-publishers |archive-date=2022-10-04 |access-date=2024-01-12 |website=[[Los Angeles Times]] (via Associated Press) |language=en-US}}</ref> In 2022 and 2023, many social media platforms such as Meta, YouTube and Twitter have significantly reduced resources in [[Trust and safety]], including fact-checking.<ref>{{Cite news |last1=Myers |first1=Steven Lee |last2=Grant |first2=Nico |date=2023-02-14 |title=Combating Disinformation Wanes at Social Media Giants |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/14/technology/disinformation-moderation-social-media.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231204180851/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/14/technology/disinformation-moderation-social-media.html |archive-date=2023-12-04 |access-date=2024-01-12 |work=The New York Times |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last1=Field |first1=Hayden |last2=Vanian |first2=Jonathan |date=2023-05-26 |title=Tech layoffs ravage the teams that fight online misinformation and hate speech |url=https://www.cnbc.com/2023/05/26/tech-companies-are-laying-off-their-ethics-and-safety-teams-.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230528034836/https://www.cnbc.com/2023/05/26/tech-companies-are-laying-off-their-ethics-and-safety-teams-.html |archive-date=2023-05-28 |access-date=2024-01-12 |website=CNBC |language=en}}</ref> [[Twitter under Elon Musk]] has severely limited access by academic researchers to Twitter's API by replacing previously free access with a subscription that starts at $42,000 per month, and by denying requests for access under the [[Digital Services Act]].<ref>{{Cite web |date=2024-02-27 |title=Under Elon Musk, X is denying API access to academics who study misinformation |url=https://www.fastcompany.com/91040397/under-elon-musk-x-is-denying-api-access-to-academics-who-study-misinformation |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240228143500/https://www.fastcompany.com/91040397/under-elon-musk-x-is-denying-api-access-to-academics-who-study-misinformation |archive-date=2024-02-28 |access-date=2024-03-02 |website=[[Fast Company]] |last1=Stokel-Walker |first1=Chris }}</ref> After the [[2023 Reddit API controversy|2023 Reddit API changes]], journalists, researchers and former Reddit moderators have expressed concerns about the spread of harmful misinformation, a relative lack of subject matter expertise from replacement mods, a vetting process of replacement mods seen as haphazard, a loss of third party tools often used for content moderation, and the difficulty for academic researchers to access Reddit data.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Harding |first=Scharon |date=2023-09-04 |title=Reddit faces content quality concerns after its Great Mod Purge |url=https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/09/are-reddits-replacement-mods-fit-to-fight-misinformation/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240202200836/https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/09/are-reddits-replacement-mods-fit-to-fight-misinformation/ |archive-date=2024-02-02 |access-date=2024-03-02 |website=Ars Technica |language=en-us}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Paul |first=Kari |date=2023-06-20 |title=TechScape: After a brutal blackout, will Reddit ever be the same? |url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/jun/20/techscape-reddit-blackout-forums-ipo-profit |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240229122223/https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/jun/20/techscape-reddit-blackout-forums-ipo-profit |archive-date=2024-02-29 |access-date=2024-03-02 |work=[[The Guardian]] |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}}</ref> Many fact-checkers rely heavily on social media platform partnerships for funding, technology and distributing their fact-checks.<ref>{{Cite news |last1=Hsu |first1=Tiffany |last2=Thompson |first2=Stuart A. |date=2023-09-29 |title=Fact Checkers Take Stock of Their Efforts: 'It's Not Getting Better' |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/29/business/media/fact-checkers-misinformation.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231123151454/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/29/business/media/fact-checkers-misinformation.html |archive-date=2023-11-23 |access-date=2024-01-12 |work=The New York Times |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Bélair-Gagnon |first1=Valérie |last2=Larsen |first2=Rebekah |last3=Graves |first3=Lucas |last4=Westlund |first4=Oscar |title=Knowledge Work in Platform Fact-Checking Partnerships |url=https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/viewFile/19851/4044 |journal=[[International Journal of Communication]] |volume=17 |issue=2023 |pages=1169–1189 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231005190747/https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/viewFile/19851/4044 |archive-date=2023-10-05}}</ref>

Commentators have also shared concerns about the use of [[false equivalence]] as an argument in political fact-checking, citing examples from The Washington Post, The New York Times and The Associated Press where "mainstream fact-checkers appear to have attempted to manufacture false claims from progressive politicians...[out of] a desire to appear objective".<ref name="Moshirnia" />

The term "fact-check" is also appropriated and overused by "partisan sites", which may lead people to "disregard fact-checking as a meaningless, motivated exercise if all content is claimed to be fact-checked".<ref name="Moshirnia" />

Fact-checking journalists have been harassed online and offline, ranging from hate mail and death threats to police intimidation and [[lawfare]].<ref>{{Cite web |date=2018-09-28 |title=Fact-checkers harassed on social networks |url=https://rsf.org/en/fact-checkers-harassed-social-networks |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230425202915/https://rsf.org/en/fact-checkers-harassed-social-networks |archive-date=2023-04-25 |access-date=2024-01-12 |website=[[Reporters Without Borders]] |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Smalley |first=Seth |date=2022-04-06 |title=Fact-checkers around the world share their experiences with harassment |url=https://www.poynter.org/ifcn/2022/global-fact-checkers-harassment/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230328165057/https://www.poynter.org/ifcn/2022/global-fact-checkers-harassment/ |archive-date=2023-03-28 |access-date=2024-01-12 |website=Poynter |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Mantas |first=Harrison |date=2021-02-17 |title=Fact-checkers score wins in court, but the threat of legal harassment remains |url=https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2021/fact-checkers-score-wins-in-court-but-the-threat-of-legal-harassment-remains/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221225222406/https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2021/fact-checkers-score-wins-in-court-but-the-threat-of-legal-harassment-remains/ |archive-date=2022-12-25 |access-date=2024-01-12 |website=Poynter |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Örsek |first=Baybars |date=2021-07-13 |title=IFCN launches working group to address harassment against fact-checkers |url=https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2021/ifcn-launches-working-group-to-address-harassment-against-fact-checkers/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231201100106/https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2021/ifcn-launches-working-group-to-address-harassment-against-fact-checkers/ |archive-date=2023-12-01 |access-date=2024-01-12 |website=Poynter |language=en-US}}</ref>

==== Fact-checking in countries with limited freedom of speech ====
Operators of some fact-checking websites in China admit to [[self-censorship]].<ref>{{Cite web |last=Cheung |first=Rachel |title=Russia-Ukraine war: In Chinese media, the US is the villain |url=https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/4/6/china-media-coverage-ukraine-war |access-date=2024-04-29 |website=Al Jazeera |language=en}}</ref> Fact-checking websites in China often avoid commenting on political, economic, and other current affairs.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Liu |first1=Yusi |last2=Zhou |first2=Ruiming |date=2022-09-13 |title='Let's Check it Seriously': Localizing Fact-Checking Practice in China |url=https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/18375 |journal=International Journal of Communication |language=en |volume=16 |page=23 |issn=1932-8036}}</ref> Several Chinese fact-checking websites have been criticized for lack of transparency with regard to their methodology and sources, and for following [[Propaganda in China|Chinese propaganda]].<ref name=":42">{{Citation |last=Fang |first=Kecheng |title='Rumor-Debunking' as a Propaganda and Censorship Strategy in China: The Case of the COVID-19 Outbreak |date=2022-04-12 |work=Disinformation in the Global South |pages=108–122 |editor-last=Wasserman |editor-first=Herman |url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781119714491.ch8 |access-date=2024-04-29 |edition=1st |publisher=Wiley |language=en |doi=10.1002/9781119714491.ch8 |isbn=978-1-119-71444-6 |editor2-last=Madrid-Morales |editor2-first=Dani|url-access=subscription }}</ref>