Methodology is a verification platform that scans, choses, investigates suspicious information and delivers them to readers by turning them into analyses.

1. Scannıng

Every single day, current news and trending topics on social media are checked via digital devices. At the same time, the stories sent by readers, widespread false facts and urban legends are also in this category. A software called Dubito helps the editors with social media scanning. The software is currently in beta planned to be released as a open-sourced software.

2. Choosıng

We sift through the suspicious news and we make the decision on whether we are going to choose to analyze that particular story on the basis of a. Virality b. Importance c. Urgency

For team to choose a particular content to investigate, the content must be viral, important enough to cause life-threathining risks, possibly can create conflict. Also if there is a possibility of a delay in evaluation causing same risks.

3. Investıgatıon

In order to verify the content, we follow the most basic journalism methods and digital tools. This process includes simple methods like the ones mentioned in Verification Handbook and the complex methods like reaching out to sources and verifying these sources.

4. Result and Analysıs

We prepare an analysis consisting only tangible data and facts, in the result of our investigation. Analysis is the text that indicates to what extent the claim was verified or falsified. We make sure that this text is plain language and  contains all the data and the facts in a transparent manner.

In the light of the data received, draws a conclusion in 4 categories:


True: It indicates that the investigated claim is true.


False; It indicates that the investigated claim is false.


Mixed; It indicates that the investigated claim contains both true and false facts.


Uncertain; It indicates that we have obtained some data about the claim but this data is not enough to reach a conclusion that this claim is true, false or mixed.


As here are the three main principles we are responsible to declare to our users for the sake of transperancy;


We present provable truth without being a side any political discussion.

We verify/debunk all the suspicious news we identify or conveyed to us, by using the same tools and methods.

Our editors analyze the suspicious news. There are three features that we have mentioned in the Methodology section to select the news to be analyzed: The suspicious news story needs to be important, viral or urgent.

In addition to the digital tools used for verification/debunking, we try to reach the sources to verify the accuracy/falsify of the news. In compliance with our internal verification process, the editors, other than the editor who wrote analysis, check analyses again.

We respect political diversity and the different worldviews of the team members. But we do not allow any point of view to be effective on the verification processes. The worldviews of the subcontractors are not effective in any analysis or any work done by employees can not be a member of any political party, can not take part in election campaigns.

We state the information about our sources in our analysis. Our readers can follow how we verify/debunk suspicious news, by reaching these sources. However, we comply with the request of our sources to keep their identity confidential if they feel threatened on the account of the position they hold or other reasons.


In our analyzes, we clearly demonstrate all the phases of our verification / debunking processes.

The most important for us is to avert the false propagation of news or images and enable the following the truth and critical thinking reflexes for all the users who get their news online.

In this process, there can be cases of the data we have leading us to errors. When there is a need for an alteration, we will make sure that everybody who reads the analyses written by, will see it.

When it is indicated that there is a mistake in one of our analyses and presented us with the sources, we launch a new investigation and analysis process. Particularly, we investigate with regard to the “correction requests” coming from our social media and WhatsApp hot-line, and when there is a need for alteration, we inform our readers while following the principle of source transparency.

Alongside with the cases that a mistake needs to be corrected, in some cases the analysis may need to be updated with the arrival of new tangible data. An update does not always mean that there is a mistake in the analysis. An update may show new information about the subject.  We indicate what we change in the analysis and at what time and date we updated the it at the bottom of the page.

If a need for second alteration or update emerges, this would remain as the second alteration information below the analysis.


The supporters of are listed in the “Supporters” section of our website. The analyses or the articles published on are not influenced by the funding institutions. We would never allow any interference to our content policy or our methodology. The moment we encounter such interference attempt, we end our relationship with that funding institution and declare this situation with our users.

Legal entities or private persons who support financally, have right to see the revenues and expenses of