Misplaced Pages

Climate Feedback: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:00, 2 April 2020 editYae4 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,590 edits →top: changing phys.org source to non-churnalism siteTag: Visual edit← Previous edit Revision as of 17:06, 2 April 2020 edit undoYae4 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,590 edits →Criticism: 3 annual reviews, also added non profit registered in france to leadTag: Visual editNext edit →
Line 10: Line 10:
| current_status = Active | current_status = Active
}} }}
'''Climate Feedback''' is one of three websites under the Science Feedback umbrella that ] media coverage of ].<ref name=":1">{{Cite news|url=https://www.cjr.org/united_states_project/climate-change-factcheck-science.php|title=At Climate Feedback, scientists encourage better science reporting. But who is listening?|work=Columbia Journalism Review|access-date=2018-12-03|language=en}}</ref> The website asks ]s in relevant fields to assess the credibility and accuracy of media stories related to climate change.<ref name=":1" /><ref name=":2">{{Cite web|url=https://www.axios.com/climate-change-is-the-easiest-news-to-fake-1529698183-579c584b-25da-49fe-a46a-cc77e913ba1c.html|title=Why climate change is the easiest news to fake|website=Axios|language=en|access-date=2018-12-03}}</ref> The website published its first review in 2015.<ref name=":2" /> The website was founded by Emmanuel Vincent, who has a ] in Oceanography & Climate from ].<ref name=":3">{{Cite web|url=https://www.poynter.org/news/fact-checker-got-several-news-outlets-correct-false-story-about-mini-ice-age |title=This fact-checker got several news outlets to correct a false story about a mini-Ice Age |website=] |language=en|access-date=2018-12-03}}</ref> '''Climate Feedback''' is one of three websites under the Science Feedback umbrella that ] media coverage of ].<ref name=":1">{{Cite news|url=https://www.cjr.org/united_states_project/climate-change-factcheck-science.php|title=At Climate Feedback, scientists encourage better science reporting. But who is listening?|work=Columbia Journalism Review|access-date=2018-12-03|language=en}}</ref> Science Feedback is a non-profit organization registered in France.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web|url=https://ifcncodeofprinciples.poynter.org/application/public/science-feedback/574C63F1-9FB5-0962-7E60-37DB04BC7920|title=Science Feedback, IFCN Code of Principles|last=Uzunoğlu|first=Sarphan|date=June 2019|website=ifcncodeofprinciples.poynter.org|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=2020-04-02}}</ref> The website asks ]s in relevant fields to assess the credibility and accuracy of media stories related to climate change.<ref name=":1" /><ref name=":2">{{Cite web|url=https://www.axios.com/climate-change-is-the-easiest-news-to-fake-1529698183-579c584b-25da-49fe-a46a-cc77e913ba1c.html|title=Why climate change is the easiest news to fake|website=Axios|language=en|access-date=2018-12-03}}</ref> The website published its first review in 2015.<ref name=":2" /> The website was founded by Emmanuel Vincent, who has a ] in Oceanography & Climate from ].<ref name=":3">{{Cite web|url=https://www.poynter.org/news/fact-checker-got-several-news-outlets-correct-false-story-about-mini-ice-age |title=This fact-checker got several news outlets to correct a false story about a mini-Ice Age |website=] |language=en|access-date=2018-12-03}}</ref>


Vincent partnered with the non-profit Hypothes.is, who created a free Internet browser plug-in that allows users to make sentence-level comments on web pages, to create an evaluation of content. Climate Feedback, an application of the Hypothes.is platform to climate science communication, allows active climate scientists to add comments.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://news.mit.edu/2014/improving-media-coverage-climate-science-1202|title=Improving media coverage of climate science|last=Wanucha|first=Genevieve|date=December 2, 2014|website=MIT News, Oceans at MIT|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=2020-04-02}}</ref> Vincent partnered with the non-profit Hypothes.is, who created a free Internet browser plug-in that allows users to make sentence-level comments on web pages, to create an evaluation of content. Climate Feedback, an application of the Hypothes.is platform to climate science communication, allows active climate scientists to add comments.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://news.mit.edu/2014/improving-media-coverage-climate-science-1202|title=Improving media coverage of climate science|last=Wanucha|first=Genevieve|date=December 2, 2014|website=MIT News, Oceans at MIT|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=2020-04-02}}</ref>
Line 29: Line 29:


In September 2019, the ] (IFCN), a network of more than 75 non-partisan fact-checking organizations in more than 40 countries, announced it would investigate whether Health Feedback, an arm of Science Feedback, had violated the IFCN’s Code of Principles’ commitment to non-partisanship and fairness in an August 2019 fact check of a claim in a video on Facebook. Based on the independent review, IFCN Director Baybars Orsek, Associate Director Cristina Tardaguila, and the IFCN Advisory Board concluded as follows:<blockquote>The findings of Science Feedback’s fact-check were based on publicly available scientific evidence and as not the result of any bias. The claim that “abortion is never medically necessary” is false and inaccurate. The process used by Science Feedback to select the original claim to review was sound and not the result of any systemic bias, and a review of the 10 last fact-checks indicates no systemic bias in the selection of claims to check. The failure to declare to their readers that two individuals who assisted Science Feedback, not in writing the fact-check but in reviewing the evidence, had positions within advocacy organizations, and the failure to clarify their role to readers, fell short of the standards required of IFCN signatories. This has been communicated to Science Feedback.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2019/the-ifcn-concludes-investigation-about-science-feedback/|title=IFCN concludes its investigation into Science Feedback complaint|date=2019-09-27|website=Poynter|language=en-US|access-date=2020-01-18}}</ref></blockquote> In September 2019, the ] (IFCN), a network of more than 75 non-partisan fact-checking organizations in more than 40 countries, announced it would investigate whether Health Feedback, an arm of Science Feedback, had violated the IFCN’s Code of Principles’ commitment to non-partisanship and fairness in an August 2019 fact check of a claim in a video on Facebook. Based on the independent review, IFCN Director Baybars Orsek, Associate Director Cristina Tardaguila, and the IFCN Advisory Board concluded as follows:<blockquote>The findings of Science Feedback’s fact-check were based on publicly available scientific evidence and as not the result of any bias. The claim that “abortion is never medically necessary” is false and inaccurate. The process used by Science Feedback to select the original claim to review was sound and not the result of any systemic bias, and a review of the 10 last fact-checks indicates no systemic bias in the selection of claims to check. The failure to declare to their readers that two individuals who assisted Science Feedback, not in writing the fact-check but in reviewing the evidence, had positions within advocacy organizations, and the failure to clarify their role to readers, fell short of the standards required of IFCN signatories. This has been communicated to Science Feedback.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2019/the-ifcn-concludes-investigation-about-science-feedback/|title=IFCN concludes its investigation into Science Feedback complaint|date=2019-09-27|website=Poynter|language=en-US|access-date=2020-01-18}}</ref></blockquote>

===Annual International Fact-Checking Network reviews===
In March 2017, ] assessor Steve Fox graded "Partially compliant" on Archive, Body of work sample, Claim submissions, Corrections policy, and Examples of corrections criteria. Fox criticized site navigation, tone not being welcoming to readers, and lack of interactivity of the site, making it difficult for readers to provide corrections.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://ifcncodeofprinciples.poynter.org/application/public/science-feedback/420C9502-78D9-A9B5-12CC-878620FF5AEA|title=Science Feedback, IFCN Code of Principles|last=Fox|first=Steve|date=March 2017|website=ifcncodeofprinciples.poynter.org|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=2020-04-02}}</ref> In May 2018, IFCN assessor Michael Wagner rated them "Partially compliant" on Sources Policy, saying review annotations "do not always provide evidence beyond the reliance upon the expertise of the annotator."<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://ifcncodeofprinciples.poynter.org/application/public/science-feedback/31A59D0D-16CF-3F00-9D24-8E40755E35D6|title=Science Feedback, IFCN Code of Principles|last=Wagner|first=Michael|date=May 2018|website=ifcncodeofprinciples.poynter.org|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=2020-04-02}}</ref> In June 2019, IFCN assessor Sarphan Uzunoğlu wrote they need to publish more often to meet IFCN's standards, criticized their "decentralized web structure," and graded them "Partially compliant" on four criteria: Archive, Sources Policy,  Claim submissions, and  Corrections policy.<ref name=":0" />


==See also== ==See also==

Revision as of 17:06, 2 April 2020

This article is about the fact-checking website. For climate change feedback, see Global warming § Climate change feedback. Fact-checking website for climate change
Climate Feedback
Type of siteFact-checking website
OwnerScience Feedback
URLclimatefeedback.org
Current statusActive

Climate Feedback is one of three websites under the Science Feedback umbrella that fact-checks media coverage of climate change. Science Feedback is a non-profit organization registered in France. The website asks climate scientists in relevant fields to assess the credibility and accuracy of media stories related to climate change. The website published its first review in 2015. The website was founded by Emmanuel Vincent, who has a PhD in Oceanography & Climate from Université Pierre et Marie Curie.

Vincent partnered with the non-profit Hypothes.is, who created a free Internet browser plug-in that allows users to make sentence-level comments on web pages, to create an evaluation of content. Climate Feedback, an application of the Hypothes.is platform to climate science communication, allows active climate scientists to add comments.

History

The website published its first review in 2015. The website was founded by Emmanuel Vincent, who has a PhD in Oceanography & Climate from Université Pierre et Marie Curie.

In 2016, Climate Feedback, a scientist-led effort to “peer review” climate journalism, raised about $30,000 with  Indigogo crowdfunding, which bolstered one of the efforts to conduct fact-checking via web annotation. Others like PolitiFact have also been experimenting with annotation methods for politicians’ posts on the blogging platform Medium, using a $140,000 grant from the Knight Foundation.

In 2017, climate blogger Dana Nuccitelli at The Guardian, in an article on climate bloggers, mentioned that Climate Feedback "is a highly respected and influential resource." The website fact-checks one or two stories per week. Typically, a story will be reviewed by five or six scientists, but on one story, there were 17 reviewers. According to Climate Feedback, each reviewer has to hold a PhD in a relevant discipline, and have at least one published article on climate science or climate change impacts in a top-tier peer-reviewed scientific journal within the last three years. However, summaries are written by an editor rather than by a reviewer. The website has identified errors in content published by outlets, such as Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, The Mail on Sunday and New York magazine. The website is included in the database of global fact-checking sites by the Reporters’ Lab at Duke University.

As a project of the Science Feedback non-profit organization, Climate Feedback reviews are used in Facebook's fact-checking partnership to identify false news and show them lower in News Feed.

HealthFeedback

When HealthNewsReview.org announced it was shutting down in December 2019, it went mostly unnoticed, because two new crowdsourced, fact-checking projects for debunking false claims about health have emerged. The first is HealthFeedback.org, a fact-checking site that asks experts to review factual claims about health. HealthFeedback is an outgrowth of ClimateFeedback.org, a fact-checking project overseen by the nonprofit organization Science Feedback, which debunks false claims about the climate and annotates news articles about science. As a fact-checking method, crowdsourcing doesn’t have a long history of success, because previous Misplaced Pages-style efforts have struggled to incentivize users and build a community. Crowdsourcing fact checks from experts certified in a subject could be promising, particularly it is enhanced by partnerships with technology platforms.

Criticism

In September 2019, the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN), a network of more than 75 non-partisan fact-checking organizations in more than 40 countries, announced it would investigate whether Health Feedback, an arm of Science Feedback, had violated the IFCN’s Code of Principles’ commitment to non-partisanship and fairness in an August 2019 fact check of a claim in a video on Facebook. Based on the independent review, IFCN Director Baybars Orsek, Associate Director Cristina Tardaguila, and the IFCN Advisory Board concluded as follows:

The findings of Science Feedback’s fact-check were based on publicly available scientific evidence and as not the result of any bias. The claim that “abortion is never medically necessary” is false and inaccurate. The process used by Science Feedback to select the original claim to review was sound and not the result of any systemic bias, and a review of the 10 last fact-checks indicates no systemic bias in the selection of claims to check. The failure to declare to their readers that two individuals who assisted Science Feedback, not in writing the fact-check but in reviewing the evidence, had positions within advocacy organizations, and the failure to clarify their role to readers, fell short of the standards required of IFCN signatories. This has been communicated to Science Feedback.

Annual International Fact-Checking Network reviews

In March 2017, IFCN assessor Steve Fox graded "Partially compliant" on Archive, Body of work sample, Claim submissions, Corrections policy, and Examples of corrections criteria. Fox criticized site navigation, tone not being welcoming to readers, and lack of interactivity of the site, making it difficult for readers to provide corrections. In May 2018, IFCN assessor Michael Wagner rated them "Partially compliant" on Sources Policy, saying review annotations "do not always provide evidence beyond the reliance upon the expertise of the annotator." In June 2019, IFCN assessor Sarphan Uzunoğlu wrote they need to publish more often to meet IFCN's standards, criticized their "decentralized web structure," and graded them "Partially compliant" on four criteria: Archive, Sources Policy,  Claim submissions, and  Corrections policy.

See also

References

  1. ^ "At Climate Feedback, scientists encourage better science reporting. But who is listening?". Columbia Journalism Review. Retrieved 2018-12-03.
  2. ^ Uzunoğlu, Sarphan (June 2019). "Science Feedback, IFCN Code of Principles". ifcncodeofprinciples.poynter.org. Retrieved 2020-04-02.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  3. ^ "Why climate change is the easiest news to fake". Axios. Retrieved 2018-12-03.
  4. ^ "This fact-checker got several news outlets to correct a false story about a mini-Ice Age". Poynter Institute. Retrieved 2018-12-03.
  5. Wanucha, Genevieve (December 2, 2014). "Improving media coverage of climate science". MIT News, Oceans at MIT. Retrieved 2020-04-02.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  6. Wilner, Tamar (May 25, 2016). "Annotation might be the future of fact-checking". Poynter. Retrieved 2020-01-18.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  7. Nuccitelli, Dana (November 29, 2017). "New study uncovers the 'keystone domino' strategy of climate denial". theguardian.com. Retrieved January 20, 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  8. "About us - Climate Feedback". Climate Feedback. 2015-05-01. Retrieved 2018-12-03.
  9. "Scientists, get onboard!". Climate Feedback. 2015-05-12. Retrieved 2020-01-21.
  10. "Process – How Climate Feedback works". Climate Feedback. Retrieved 2020-02-22.
  11. "Fact-checking triples over four years - Duke Reporters' Lab". Duke Reporters' Lab. 2018-02-22. Retrieved 2018-12-03.
  12. "Facebook adds 2 new fact-checking partners". Axios. 2019-04-17.
  13. "Fact-Checking on Facebook: What Publishers Should Know". Facebook. Retrieved 2019-04-19.
  14. Funke, Daniel (March 14, 2019). "Is expert crowdsourcing the solution to health misinformation?". Poynter. Retrieved 2020-01-18.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  15. "IFCN concludes its investigation into Science Feedback complaint". Poynter. 2019-09-27. Retrieved 2020-01-18.
  16. Fox, Steve (March 2017). "Science Feedback, IFCN Code of Principles". ifcncodeofprinciples.poynter.org. Retrieved 2020-04-02.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  17. Wagner, Michael (May 2018). "Science Feedback, IFCN Code of Principles". ifcncodeofprinciples.poynter.org. Retrieved 2020-04-02.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

External links

Category: