Back to Details

fact-check-workflow

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English
🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese

Fact-check workflow

事实核查工作流程

Fact-checking is systematic, not intuitive. This skill provides structure for claim verification, evidence documentation, and rating decisions.
事实核查是系统化的工作，而非凭直觉判断。本技能为声明验证、证据记录和评级决策提供了结构化框架。

When to use

使用场景

  • Pre-publication fact-checking of articles
  • Dedicated fact-check stories (rating claims)
  • Verifying source statements during reporting
  • Building fact-checking protocols for a newsroom
  • Training staff on verification standards
  • 文章发布前的事实核查
  • 专门的事实核查报道（为声明评级）
  • 报道过程中核实消息来源的陈述
  • 为新闻编辑部制定事实核查规范
  • 培训员工掌握验证标准

The fact-check process

事实核查流程

1. Identify claim → 2. Research claim → 3. Gather evidence →
4. Contact sources → 5. Rate/verify → 6. Document → 7. Publish/correct
1. 识别声明 → 2. 调研声明 → 3. 收集证据 →
4. 联系消息来源 → 5. 评级/验证 → 6. 记录归档 → 7. 发布/更正

Step 1: Claim extraction

步骤1：提取声明

What to check

核查内容

Check:
  • Factual assertions ("X happened," "Y is true")
  • Statistics and numbers
  • Dates and timelines
  • Quotes and attributions
  • Causal claims ("X caused Y")
Don't check (opinions):
  • "This policy is good/bad"
  • "We should do X"
  • Predictions about the future
  • Matters of taste or preference
核查：
  • 事实断言（如“X事件发生了”“Y情况属实”）
  • 统计数据与数字
  • 日期与时间线
  • 引述与署名
  • 因果声明（如“X导致了Y”）
无需核查（观点类内容）：
  • “这项政策好/不好”
  • “我们应该做X”
  • 对未来的预测
  • 品味或偏好相关的内容

Claim extraction template

声明提取模板

markdown
undefined
markdown
undefined

Claim log

声明日志

Article/Source: [where the claim appeared] Date: [when]
文章/来源： [声明出处] 日期： [发布时间]

Claim 1

声明1

Statement: [exact quote or paraphrase] Speaker: [who said it] Context: [surrounding context] Type: [statistic/historical/quote/causal] Priority: [high/medium/low based on importance to story] Status: [pending/verified/false/unverifiable]
陈述内容： [准确引述或转述] 发言者： [陈述人] 上下文： [相关背景] 类型： [统计数据/历史事件/引述/因果关系] 优先级： [高/中/低，依据对报道的重要性] 状态： [待核查/已验证/不实/无法验证]

Claim 2

声明2

[same structure]
undefined
[相同格式]
undefined

Prioritizing claims

声明优先级划分

PriorityCriteria
HighCentral to the story's thesis, easily checkable, high consequence if wrong
MediumSupporting detail, takes more effort to verify
LowPeripheral detail, commonly accepted, minimal consequence
Check high-priority claims first. Check all claims if time allows.
优先级判定标准
高对报道核心论点至关重要，易于核查，若出错会造成严重后果
中辅助细节，核查需投入更多精力
低边缘细节，已被广泛认可，出错影响极小
先核查高优先级声明。若时间允许，核查所有声明。

Step 2: Research the claim

步骤2：调研声明

Primary sources first

优先使用一手来源

Claim typePrimary sources
StatisticsOriginal study, government data, survey methodology
QuotesAudio/video recording, transcript, direct confirmation
HistoricalContemporary news accounts, official records
ScientificPeer-reviewed research, expert consensus
LegalCourt documents, official filings
FinancialSEC filings, audited statements
声明类型一手来源
统计数据原始研究报告、政府数据、调查方法论
引述内容音视频记录、文字转录稿、直接确认
历史事件同期新闻报道、官方记录
科学内容同行评审研究、专家共识
法律内容法庭文件、官方备案
财务内容SEC备案文件、审计报告

Secondary source evaluation

二手来源评估

If you must use secondary sources:
  • How close are they to the original?
  • Do they cite their sources?
  • Do multiple independent sources confirm?
  • Is there any contradicting coverage?
若必须使用二手来源：
  • 其与原始来源的关联度如何？
  • 是否标注了自身来源？
  • 是否有多个独立来源予以确认？
  • 是否存在矛盾的报道？

Research documentation template

调研记录模板

markdown
undefined
markdown
undefined

Research for Claim: [brief description]

声明调研：[简要描述]

Primary sources checked

已核查的一手来源

SourceWhat it saysConfirms/Contradicts
[source][finding][confirms/contradicts/partial]
来源内容要点确认/矛盾
[来源][调研发现][确认/矛盾/部分符合]

Secondary sources checked

已核查的二手来源

SourceWhat it saysReliability
[source][finding][high/medium/low]
来源内容要点可信度
[来源][调研发现][高/中/低]

Gaps in evidence

证据缺口

  • [What you couldn't find]
  • [What you still need]
undefined
  • [未找到的信息]
  • [仍需补充的内容]
undefined

Step 3: Evidence gathering

步骤3：收集证据

Types of evidence

证据类型

Evidence typeStrengthNotes
Official documentsStrongCourt records, government reports, filings
Primary dataStrongOriginal datasets, your own analysis
Expert consensusStrongMultiple independent experts agree
On-record sourcesMediumNamed source with direct knowledge
Contemporary accountsMediumNews coverage from the time
Off-record sourcesWeakUse to guide reporting, not as evidence
Social media postsWeakCan be deleted, context matters
证据类型可信度说明
官方文件高法庭记录、政府报告、备案文件
原始数据高原始数据集、自主分析结果
专家共识高多名独立专家达成一致
公开来源中具直接知情权的署名来源
同期报道中事件发生时的新闻报道
匿名来源低可用于指导报道，但不能作为证据
社交媒体帖子低可能被删除，需结合上下文判断

Evidence checklist

证据核查清单

markdown
undefined
markdown
undefined

Evidence for: [claim]

声明证据：[声明内容]

Documentary evidence

文件类证据

  • Government records
  • Court documents
  • Corporate filings
  • Published research
  • Official statements/press releases
  • 政府记录
  • 法庭文件
  • 企业备案
  • 已发表研究
  • 官方声明/新闻稿

Human sources

人际来源

  • Direct witnesses
  • Subject matter experts
  • Involved parties (on record)
  • Involved parties (for response)
  • 直接目击者
  • 领域专家
  • 相关方（公开表态）
  • 相关方（用于回应）

Data verification

数据验证

  • Original dataset obtained
  • Methodology reviewed
  • Calculations independently verified
  • Sample size adequate
  • 获取原始数据集
  • 审核研究方法
  • 独立验证计算结果
  • 样本量充足

Contradicting evidence

矛盾证据

  • Searched for conflicting sources
  • Contradictions documented
  • Discrepancies explained
undefined
  • 已搜索冲突来源
  • 已记录矛盾点
  • 已解释差异原因
undefined

Step 4: Contact sources

步骤4：联系消息来源

Right of response

回应权

Always contact:
  • People/organizations being fact-checked
  • Give specific claims you're checking
  • Give reasonable deadline (24-48 hours minimum)
  • Document their response (or non-response)
必须联系：
  • 被核查的个人/机构
  • 明确告知待核查的具体声明
  • 给予合理期限（至少24-48小时）
  • 记录其回应（或未回应情况）

Source contact template

来源联系模板

markdown
Subject: Request for comment - [Publication] fact-check

Dear [Name],

I'm a [title] at [publication] working on a fact-check of [context].

Specifically, I'm examining this claim:

"[Exact claim being checked]"

I want to give you the opportunity to provide any evidence supporting this claim, clarify the context, or offer any corrections.

My deadline is [date/time]. Please let me know if you need more time.

[Your name]
[Contact info]
markdown
主题：请求回应 - [出版物名称]事实核查

尊敬的[姓名]：

我是[出版物名称]的[职位]，正在针对[背景]开展事实核查工作。

具体而言，我正在核实以下声明：

"[待核查的准确声明]"

我希望为您提供机会，提供支持该声明的证据、澄清背景信息或提出更正意见。

我的截止日期为[日期/时间]。若您需要更多时间，请告知我。

[您的姓名]
[联系方式]

Document responses

回应记录

markdown
undefined
markdown
undefined

Source response log

来源回应日志

[Source name]

[来源名称]

Contacted: [date/time, method] Deadline given: [date/time] Response received: [date/time] / No response Summary: [what they said] Evidence provided: [any documentation] Direct quote for publication: "[quote]"
undefined
联系时间： [日期/时间，联系方式] 给出的截止日期： [日期/时间] 收到回应： [日期/时间] / 未回应 回应摘要： [内容要点] 提供的证据： [相关文件] 可发布的直接引述： "[引述内容]"
undefined

Step 5: Rating the claim

步骤5：声明评级

Standard rating scales

标准评级体系

Binary (for internal fact-checking):
  • ✅ Verified
  • ❌ False
  • ⚠️ Unverifiable
Graduated (for fact-check articles):
RatingCriteria
TrueAccurate and complete, nothing significant omitted
Mostly trueAccurate but needs context or minor clarification
Half truePartially accurate but leaves out critical context
Mostly falseContains some truth but overall misleading
FalseNot accurate; contradicted by evidence
Pants on fireNot accurate AND ridiculous (use sparingly)
二元评级（用于内部事实核查）：
  • ✅ 已验证
  • ❌ 不实
  • ⚠️ 无法验证
分级评级（用于事实核查报道）：
评级判定标准
真实准确完整，无重要信息遗漏
基本真实准确但需补充背景或轻微澄清
半真半假部分准确，但遗漏关键背景
基本不实包含少量真实信息，但整体具有误导性
不实不准确；被证据推翻
完全虚假不准确且荒谬（谨慎使用）

Rating decision template

评级决策模板

markdown
undefined
markdown
undefined

Rating decision: [claim]

评级决策：[声明内容]

Claim: [exact statement] Speaker: [who said it] Our rating: [rating]
声明： [准确陈述] 发言者： [陈述人] 我方评级： [评级结果]

Evidence supporting the claim

支持声明的证据

  • [Evidence 1]
  • [Evidence 2]
  • [证据1]
  • [证据2]

Evidence contradicting the claim

反驳声明的证据

  • [Evidence 1]
  • [Evidence 2]
  • [证据1]
  • [证据2]

Key context missing from the claim

声明缺失的关键背景

  • [Context 1]
  • [Context 2]
  • [背景1]
  • [背景2]

Source response

来源回应

[What they said when contacted]
[联系后的回应内容]

Reasoning

评级理由

[Explain why this rating, not another]
[解释为何给出该评级而非其他]

Confidence level

置信度

[High/Medium/Low and why]
undefined
[高/中/低及原因]
undefined

Step 6: Documentation

步骤6：记录归档

The fact-check file

事实核查档案

For every claim verified, maintain:
markdown
undefined
针对每一条已验证的声明，需留存：
markdown
undefined

Fact-check record

事实核查记录

Claim: [exact statement] Source: [who said it, where, when] Checked by: [your name] Date checked: [date]
声明： [准确陈述] 来源： [陈述人、出处、时间] 核查人： [您的姓名] 核查日期： [日期]

Verification

验证结果

Rating: [rating] Primary evidence: [list with links/locations] Supporting evidence: [list] Contradicting evidence: [if any]
评级： [评级结果] 核心证据： [列表含链接/存放位置] 辅助证据： [列表] 矛盾证据： [如有]

Sources contacted

联系过的来源

  • [Name]: [response summary]
  • [Name]: [no response as of date]
  • [姓名]：[回应摘要]
  • [姓名]：[截止日期前未回应]

Notes

备注

[Any additional context, caveats, future considerations]
[补充背景、注意事项、后续考量]

Files

文件

  • [List of saved documents, screenshots, etc.]
undefined
  • [保存的文档、截图等列表]
undefined

Archiving evidence

证据归档

  • Save screenshots with timestamps (URLs can change)
  • Archive web pages (Wayback Machine, Archive.today)
  • Download documents (don't just link)
  • Keep original files separate from your analysis
  • 保存带时间戳的截图（URL可能变更）
  • 存档网页（使用Wayback Machine、Archive.today）
  • 下载文件（不要仅留链接）
  • 原始文件与分析内容分开存放

Step 7: Corrections

步骤7：更正内容

When to correct

更正场景

SituationAction
Factual errorCorrect immediately, note correction
Missing contextAdd context, may not need formal correction
Updated informationUpdate, note "Updated: [date]"
Source disputes characterizationEvaluate claim, correct if warranted
情况行动
事实错误立即更正，并标注更正说明
缺失背景补充背景，无需正式更正
信息更新更新内容，标注“更新于：[日期]”
来源对表述有异议重新评估声明，若合理则更正

Correction template

更正模板

markdown
**Correction [date]:** An earlier version of this article stated [incorrect claim].
In fact, [correct information]. We regret the error.
markdown
**更正 [日期]：** 本文此前版本表述为[错误声明]。
实际情况为[正确信息]。我们对该错误深表歉意。

Correction log

更正记录

markdown
undefined
markdown
undefined

Correction record

更正记录

Article: [title/URL] Original publication: [date] Error discovered: [date] Error type: [factual/context/attribution/etc.]
Original text: [what was published]
Corrected text: [what it now says]
How discovered: [reader tip, internal review, source complaint, etc.]
Correction published: [date] Location: [in article, separate correction page, both]
undefined
文章： [标题/URL] 原发布日期： [日期] 发现错误日期： [日期] 错误类型： [事实/背景/署名等]
原文内容： [发布的错误内容]
更正后内容： [当前内容]
发现途径： [读者提示、内部审核、来源投诉等]
更正发布日期： [日期] 发布位置： [文章内、独立更正页面、两者皆有]
undefined

Pre-publication checklist

发布前核查清单

Before any story publishes:
markdown
undefined
报道发布前需完成：
markdown
undefined

Pre-publication fact-check

发布前事实核查

Article: [title] Reporter: [name] Editor: [name] Fact-checker: [name, if separate] Publish date: [date]
文章： [标题] 记者： [姓名] 编辑： [姓名] 事实核查人： [姓名，若单独设置] 发布日期： [日期]

Claims verified

已验证的声明

ClaimStatusEvidenceNotes
[claim 1]✅[source]
[claim 2]✅[source]
声明状态证据备注
[声明1]✅[来源]
[声明2]✅[来源]

Sources contacted for comment

已联系获取回应的来源

SourceContactedResponse
[name][date][received/no response]
来源联系时间回应情况
[姓名][日期][已收到/未回应]

Numbers and statistics

数字与统计

  • All statistics sourced
  • Calculations independently verified
  • Context provided (per capita, adjusted for inflation, etc.)
  • 所有统计数据均有来源
  • 计算结果已独立验证
  • 提供相关背景（如人均值、通胀调整后数据等）

Quotes

引述内容

  • All quotes verified against recording/transcript
  • Attribution is accurate
  • Context preserved
  • 所有引述均与录音/转录稿核对
  • 署名准确
  • 背景完整保留

Names and titles

姓名与头衔

  • All names spelled correctly
  • Titles current and accurate
  • Affiliations verified
  • 所有姓名拼写正确
  • 头衔当前且准确
  • 所属机构已核实

Legal review (if applicable)

法律审核（如适用）

  • Defamation risk assessed
  • All claims supported by evidence
  • Response from subjects documented
  • 已评估诽谤风险
  • 所有声明均有证据支持
  • 相关方的回应已记录

Sign-off

签字确认

Reporter: [name, date] Editor: [name, date] Fact-checker: [name, date]
undefined
记者： [姓名，日期] 编辑： [姓名，日期] 事实核查人： [姓名，日期]
undefined

Fact-check article structure

事实核查报道结构

For dedicated fact-check stories:
markdown
undefined
针对专门的事实核查报道：
markdown
undefined

[Headline: Claim being checked]

[标题：待核查的声明]

Claim: [Exact claim in quotes] Source: [Who said it, where, when] Our rating: [Rating with visual indicator]
声明： [带引号的准确声明] 来源： [陈述人、出处、时间] 我方评级： [带视觉标识的评级结果]

What was said

声明背景

[Context of the claim, full quote, circumstances]
[声明的上下文、完整引述、相关情况]

What the evidence shows

证据呈现

[Present evidence for and against]
[展示支持与反驳的证据]

The verdict

评级结论

[Explanation of rating decision]
[解释评级决策的理由]

Sources

来源列表

[List all sources with links]
Published: [date] | Updated: [date if applicable]

---

*Fact-checking isn't about gotchas. It's about accuracy. The goal is truth, not points.*
[列出所有来源及链接]
发布日期：[日期] | 更新日期：[如适用]

---

*事实核查并非为了挑错，而是为了确保准确性。目标是还原真相，而非得分。*