View source for Organization and operation

== The method ==

Community-based discussions plus subsequent informed '''ranking''' of fact checking sites may be able to deal with the issue of "who checks the existing fact checkers".

We will also do '''our own fact checking''' by critically reviewing selected Wikipedia articles and other available information including original documents. Based on that we will create more reliable Wikipedia-style articles, and thus provide an alternative to Wikipedia concerning sensitive topics. For achieving more "neutral" content, see next.

Most topics on Wikipedia are without issues; the problem is those topics on which interest groups are still able to maintain twisted presentations and censor articles by means of a full time presence of gate keepers. To reduce the risk of that happening here, we will '''not''' allow '''everyone''' to '''edit'''; this will be reserved for members. And we will try a new method.

The '''basic concept''' here is to make use of a process similar to scientific '''"open peer review"''' but by means of '''random topic assignment to three volunteers''' per chosen topic, in addition to public discussions. This method of random assignment in order to achieve a reasonably fair ("neutral") presentation of facts seems to be new - for a comparison with other wikis see  '''[[InfoCheckers:Differences with Other Wikis]]'''. 

The three volunteers could independently research the topic, compare their results, upon which a Wikipedia-style article on the reviewed topic is made by and/or approved by a group including the three volunteers - that was the original idea. However, it will be more practical and encouraging to let motivated members spontaneously draft improved articles. When an administrator agrees that an article is ready for review, three randomly chosen reviewers will get the task to correct, and further improve that article, in collaboration with the original authors. Then the article's first "approved" status is obtained.

For the sake of efficiency those articles will generally be modifications of existing versions of Wikipedia articles on those topics. Mostly editing [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ten_simple_rules_for_editing_Wikipedia guidelines as established in Wikipedia] will be followed. A significant difference with Wikipedia will be that we won't categorically rely on so-called "[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Secondary reliable secondary sources]" but, instead, we will more strongly rely on our own independent verification of original materials (scientific approach) - in Wikipedia language those are called "[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary primary sources]". When in doubt, experts should be consulted. It's a regretful result of Wikipedia policy that obvious misrepresentation of facts by secondary "reliable sources" is presented as factual if no "reliable" contrary secondary sources could be found. 

As we aim for a level of factual reliability and quality of interpretation that is superior to Wikipedia, it will be necessary to create a selection test for volunteer reviewers.

Details are still open for discussion: please discuss "The method" here below.

And note, if you wonder why this different "skin"/layout: this is a demo, the skin(s) to choose/make is also open for [[Special:WikiForum/Features_to_implement_into_current_skin|discussion!]]
--------------
<WikiForumThread id=16 replies=true />