Before beginning operations in February 2024, MultiFact Check (MFC) established a standardized methodology for verifying factual claims. This framework guides how information is collected, verified, and presented to the public.
Claim Selection and Public Interest Worthiness
MFC adopts 211Check’s Public Interest Worthiness Matrix to select and determine topics that deserve priority fact-checking from the claims submitted for verification. This matrix considers factors such as:
This systematic approach ensures that MFC’s fact-checking efforts focus on content that has the greatest impact on public discourse and civic understanding.
Verification Process
MFC’s verification process involves several key steps. Information or claims selected for fact-checking are gathered from a range of sources, including news reports, social media platforms, government and non-government publications, and other publicly available materials.
The editorial team meets to discuss potential claims, determine verification priorities, and assign fact-checkers. In terms of verification scope, MFC focuses exclusively on factual claims, not opinions, ideologies, or arguments. Each statement is evaluated based on the exact wording and its broader context.
Once a verifiable claim is identified, assigned fact-checkers reach out to original sources, consult experts when necessary, and/or use digital verification tools to confirm authenticity. MFC prioritizes credible, verifiable, and publicly accessible sources while avoiding unverified or dubious ones.
The editorial team reviews the verified claim, determines the verdict, and provides guidance for article drafting and publication.
Article Structure
Every fact-check article follows a clear and consistent structure to make content accessible and transparent to readers. Each piece begins by stating what was claimed, followed immediately by MFC’s verdict (for example, True, False, Misleading, or Unproven). It then provides more detail on the nature of the claim – who made it, where it originated, how widely it was shared and circulated, and how the audience engaged with it (e.g., number of followers, shares, or reactions).
Using this background as a foundation, the article moves into analysis and verification, explaining how MFC fact-checkers verified the claim and the tools, data, or sources they relied upon. It also offers recommendations to help readers learn how to independently identify and counter misinformation – for example, by cross-checking content, using image or video verification tools, or consulting original sources directly.
Finally, the article provides context and background to help readers understand the broader significance of the claim and its potential impact. MFC also encourages readers to engage by reporting possible corrections or submitting new claims for verification (see MFC’s Corrections Policy in the Editorial Policy).
Thematic Focus
As its name suggests, MultiFact Check (MFC) covers multiple thematic areas, primarily focusing on political and socio-economic issues. In Ethiopia and other countries in the Horn of Africa, misinformation in politics is often intertwined with social and economic narratives – and vice versa.
Fact-checking political claims contributes to public understanding of social and economic realities, while verifying socio-economic claims enhances awareness of their political implications.
Timeliness, Ethics, and Non-Partisanship
MFC prioritizes reaching out to the original source of a claim and aims to verify it quickly, especially when the claim is going viral or risks fueling misinformation and conflict. Reports are updated whenever new evidence becomes available.
The organization adheres to strict ethical standards, ensuring proper source attribution, respect for privacy and copyright, and avoidance of personal attacks or inflammatory language. MFC’s editorial work is guided by the principle of “Do No Harm,” ensuring that all reporting serves the public interest without causing undue harm to individuals or communities.
MFC is firmly committed to non-partisanship and impartiality in its claim selection, verification process, and presentation of findings. Our fact-checkers and editorial team operate independently – free from any political, ideological, or financial influence that could compromise objectivity or editorial integrity.
Languages
To effectively reach the diverse audiences of the Horn of Africa and its diaspora, MFC produces content in English and several local languages, including Afaan Oromo, Amharic, and Tigrigna.
While English serves as MFC’s primary working and editorial language, fact-checkers also produce articles in their preferred local languages, depending on the geographic and linguistic relevance of each claim.
This multilingual approach reflects MFC’s core mission – to promote accurate information across communities – and helps maximize its impact by reaching broader audiences, particularly in regions most affected by misinformation and conflict.
Rating Claims
After each claim is verified and analyzed, MFC assigns a verdict that reflects its level of factual accuracy. The rating system is consistent, transparent, and adaptable, recognizing that new evidence may emerge over time that can alter a claim’s classification.
As emphasized by Guess & Lyons (2020), MFC focuses primarily on claims that can be directly verified or that can be assessed based on a reasonable consensus among credible experts.
Currently, MFC uses eight rating categories: