Collecting information for fact-checking: rules and steps

One of the most challenging decisions when pursuing an activity related with fact-checking is the methodology used to collect and select the information needed to decide on a specific topic/event.

A sensitive issue that demands special attention because it can directly influence the credibility of a study is the question related with the sources and collection of information. Where to gather information and what kind of data is important and needs treatment when compared to other from the same or from other sources?

This is the subject I suggest to address in several topics:

1. Determination of the exact question to be answered through fact-checking

What we see very often is the attempt to gather elements that reinforce one’s idea even if such idea lacks evidence and only derives from a prejudice. In scientific research, any honest and real investigation starts from a question to which one intends to get elements in order to find and provide the true answer – even if in the end it contradicts the first idea someone had on a specific subject.

The determination of the question to be answered will directly influence the nature of the sources a fact-checker needs in order to deliver his/her findings. Let’s take as an example Spanish fact-checker MALDITA’s affirmation, on 24.02.2025, that it was false that Volodymyr Zelensky had 4% of support in Ukraine as President Donald Trump said.

To be able to answer to this, MALDITA must collect credible data to demonstrate that on 24.02.2025, support for Volodymyr Zelensky was not 4%. Additionally, at stake here is the scope of “support”. Does it mean confidence in the work done when addressing a specific topic? Does it mean the approval rate on a given time? Does it mean intention to vote for Zelensky in future elections? If MALDITA doesn’t clarify this, MALDITA will be able to present any study and any data from any source available that would fit in their belief on this matter – as it happened.

But even if we ignore this element, MALDITA can only use sources whose credibility and methodology cannot be disputed and leaves no doubts over the way conclusions were reached. Although produced in a generalized way, polls as the only source to demonstrate real and effective support on a political leader can be tricky, especially if considered the context under which such polls are conducted (martial law in force and blocking of political opposition) along with the methodology used (how broad and representative is the universe of those surveyed and to what extent was confidentiality assured) and the qualification of the centre and of the researchers involved in such study.

On the other hand, if the question sounded like «What percentage of the international community supports Vladimir Zelensky?», it would be necessary to analyze exclusively official statements by foreign governments or the results of polls and votes on specific resolutions/international documents (UN, etc.), where Zelensky is explicitly mentioned and support is beyond doubt.

Thus, the way the question is made will directly influence the type of sources needed to dig and get elements that will help us finding an answer to a specific question.

Refutation of the fake about the high “support rating” of Zelensky and exposing the activities of Maldita.es you can read in our material.

2. Choosing sources for factchecking

One of the key tasks in fact-checking is the proper approach to collecting and analyzing information. The first step is to identify reliable sources of data. First of all, you should turn to primary sources of events – user-generated content (video and photos of eyewitnesses), live broadcasts from the scene of the incident, as well as original documents and archives. These materials allow you to get direct evidence of what happened.

No less important are official sources: press releases of organizations, data from government agencies and international structures, and court documents. However, it is important to remember that such materials reflect the position of the relevant institutions, but not always the fact itself. Expert assessments – analytics of specialized specialists, scientific publications, reports of independent observers – help to complete the picture.

Preference for primary and official sources

Official sources bring a tremendous advantage to any researcher: one can have access to the original content from the author who produced it, without any interference, interpretation or manipulation from a third party. Basically, one can work with ‘raw material’ in full and avoid errors or intentionally changed contents. But it should be taken into account that such sources (e.g. social networks of authorities) are not always neutral – they reflect the position and policies of these structures, and therefore may contain manipulation or biased presentation of information.

This doesn’t mean that all content from official sources is credible: the methodology used to deliver such content can be disputed in case of need, hence it is not automatically reliable from the scientific point of view just because it derives from an official source. However, at least one can go directly to a source that can influence the decision on the fact subjected to the examination.

Also, it is important to understand the nature of such materials: official statements themselves are primary sources of the position of the authorities, but not necessarily primary sources of the events described.

For example, a government statement on the protests is the primary source of the official position, while a video from the scene is the primary source of the protests themselves. For a comprehensive assessment, it is necessary to distinguish between these levels of information and consider both types of sources.

For political statements, official decisions and meaning given by a representative of a State, Government or international organisations, the most reliable source will always be official records. UN General Assembly’s and Security Council’s official records will likely help to determine the scope and boundaries of UN resolutions, for example. The official records from a meeting between State officials can also help everyone to understand the intention behind a specific decision or position.

News reports as sources

Contents produced by media outlets are quite often used as sources to demonstrate the verification or to deny an event, position, etc. However, news and other contents produced by the media should always be seen in a cautious way.

It is common to find out that Governments or private entities fund many of these entities, thus the content produced can be often manipulated in order to disseminate a message someone wants to be disseminated and even content apparently harmless and full of facts widely known as being truth can hide details intentionally disguised and introduced to help to ‘spread the message’.

Regardless of how prestigious a news outlet can be, the content produced by media outlets shall not be embraced wholeheartedly as an evidence of a fact and such information (and details) shall always be cross-checked. In the end, news reports can rarely be used as primary sources, although such contents can be instrumental in nature and help to corroborate the existence of facts on a case-by-case approach.

Blogs, streams, tweets and other online content

As a rule, blogs, streams, tweets and other user-generated online content can give you assessments, interpretations or specific views of facts. Basically, such sources can help you to understand a specific fact – although it can also help you to see one reality in a specific way, being able to limit your view of a fact.

It’s not common to have such means as able to demonstrate facts, although under specific circumstances they can be used as sources of confirmation or non-confirmation of facts.

However, it is important to distinguish between types of online content: while it is true that many web platforms are neither primary nor even secondary sources, some materials (e.g., videos, photos and eyewitness accounts on social media) can be primary sources, as their creators independently record and publish events without processing by authorities. However, simply posting information – even on a reputable account – does not automatically guarantee its authenticity.

3. Rules for verifying information sources

One should never exhaust the research and collection of information with one single source, when possible.

Even if one source appears to be sufficiently reliable, it is better to verify the information with at least three independent and competent sources for credibility. This approach minimizes the risks of misrepresentation, accidental errors or bias in fact-checking.

The more you can confront data from different sources, the more you’ll be able to deliver reliable findings on an event subjected to fact-checking. Do not reject all sources identified above, especially when they can help you how to understand a specific reality or method and allow you to challenge specific content that at first could be seen as trustworthy.

Bonus: analyzing and evaluating sources

When working with information, several aspects require special attention. First, technical details such as time stamps, geolocation, and media metadata. Second, the chronology of events and the identification of participants, especially in the presence of contradictory data from different sources. Particular caution should be exercised with materials disseminated through “non-transparent” channels, as well as information from sources with obvious conflicts of interest.

The verification methodology should include several mandatory elements: cross-verification by at least three independent sources, clear separation of established facts and their interpretations, analysis of the origin of information and its changes over time. It is important to document all stages of verification – this ensures transparency and allows you to audit the research if necessary.

The main principle of quality factchecking is a balance between promptness and thoroughness. Even when working under time constraints, it is necessary to maintain a critical approach, distinguishing confirmed data from assumptions and speculation. Only such a comprehensive method allows you to come to reliable conclusions.