FACT-CHECKING SYSTEMS
What gets verified, how it's verified, and what "automatically checked" actually means — including its limits.
Seven Academic APIs, Running Continuously
Source verification runs against external databases — not just our own judgment. Every DOI, ISBN, and named scholar is cross-checked against real academic infrastructure.
| Source | What It Checks | Type |
|---|---|---|
| CrossRef147M+ academic records | DOI validity, title/year match, retraction signals, bibliographic metadata | Live API |
| Retraction WatchDatabase of retracted papers | Whether cited papers have been formally retracted or issued corrections | Live API |
| Open LibraryISBN validation | Book existence, title/author/publisher match for cited books | Live API |
| Semantic ScholarCitation graph | Paper existence, citation counts, venue — additional DOI cross-check | Live API |
| PubMed / NCBIBiomedical literature | Biomedical and life-science paper validation | Live API |
| WikipediaEntity existence | Named scholars, institutions, and entities exist and match description | Live API |
| OpenAlexAuthor graph | Author identity, publication record, institutional affiliation | Live API |
Honest note: A 70.1% CrossRef match rate means ~30% of bibliography entries could not be automatically verified via DOI. Many of these are correctly cited books without DOIs, older papers, or grey literature — not necessarily errors. Unverified entries reduce a document's source confidence score. They do not trigger automatic removal, but they are flagged for review.
Every Document Scored on 8 Dimensions
The quality pipeline scores each document automatically. Scores are aggregated to a 0–100 quality index. Current corpus average: 88.45/100 (A-).
Document follows the canonical template: all required sections present, header metadata complete, bibliography minimum met.
Claims are tied to specific bibliography entries. Named scholars appear in bold. Institutional attribution present where applicable.
Evidence is specific: exact dates, measurements with units, artifact IDs, excavation site references. Vague "studies show" language penalized.
Counter-arguments are real, published objections — not strawmen. Strongest available challenge to each claim is presented fairly.
Citations are in canonical format. DOIs and ISBNs present where available. Mix of source types (peer-reviewed, academic books, primary texts).
Documents link to related docs across the corpus. Cross-reference index present. Connections are genuine and described, not just listed.
Each factual claim can be traced to a specific citation. No floating facts without source anchoring.
All required content sections contain substantive, topic-specific content. No placeholder text or boilerplate.
Separate Factuality Scan, Same Documents
The factuality scanner runs independently from the quality scorecard. It targets verifiability rather than structural completeness. Current corpus average: 75.29/100 (B).
Documents weighted by their primary evidence tier. Tier 1-dominant documents score higher than Tier 3-dominant ones.
How many distinct sources are cited. Documents with thin bibliographies (fewer than 10–15 entries) are penalized.
Ratio of citations to document length. Longer documents with proportionally fewer citations score lower.
Proportion of bibliography entries with a verified DOI or ISBN. Higher verification = higher score.
Penalty for phrases like "studies show" or "researchers believe" without specific attribution. Current corpus scores 98% — very low vague sourcing.
Same as quality scorecard but weighted differently — factuality scoring penalizes weak counter-argument sections more heavily for documents making strong positive claims.
Claims are supported by specific, named evidence rather than general descriptions. Publication years, scholar names, and measurements required.
Quality Checks That Run Automatically
The pipeline runs on the full corpus whenever documents are added or updated. Ten quality steps plus ten infrastructure steps — each with defined inputs, outputs, and failure modes.
Checks every document for required sections, header format compliance, bibliography minimum. 0 errors maintained as a hard standard.
Adds DOIs to bibliography entries via CrossRef API where missing. Rate-limited to respect CrossRef's infrastructure.
Classifies each bibliography entry by source type (journal/book/other), calculates weighted score, assigns [N/5] confidence rating.
Submits all DOIs to CrossRef for validation. Flags mismatches between cited metadata and CrossRef records. Checks for retraction signals.
Scores all 3,632 documents on the 8 quality dimensions (Q4) and 7 factuality dimensions (Q5). Outputs per-document JSON and corpus aggregates.
Q7: checks claim consistency across documents. Q8: validates mathematical formulas against the formula reference. Q9: checks date plausibility and cross-document date consistency.
What the pipeline cannot catch: A well-formatted citation to a real paper that doesn't actually support the claim made in the document. Pipeline checks verify that a source exists and is real — not that the claim accurately represents what the source says. That requires human review, which we do on a rotating basis for high-stakes claims.
The Same Openness, Applied to You
We hold our own data handling to the honesty we ask of every claim in the corpus. Here, in plain terms, is exactly what is and isn't stored when you read or take part.
Reading takes nothing at all. Posting takes only a username and a password: no email, no real name. Your IP address is never stored as an address. The software keeps only a one-way salted hash of it, used purely to slow bots and spam, and a hash cannot be turned back into an IP. Nothing we store identifies you.
Like every website on the internet, the server this site runs on keeps ordinary access logs that include visitor IP addresses. Our host, GoDaddy, rotates these out roughly every seven days and uses them only for security and aggregate, non-identifying traffic counts. This is normal web infrastructure, not something the site chooses to do, and it works the same way on essentially every site you visit.
The bottom line: the aggregate visit counts we look at come from Google Analytics, which does not store your IP address either; the short-lived server logs above are a normal part of how the web works everywhere; and the part we actually build and control stores nothing that can identify you. The same standard runs through the rest of this page, applied to the research itself.
A Place to Speak Freely
The anonymity here is a deliberate choice, not an oversight. It exists so that anyone, anywhere, can speak openly and think out loud without weighing what it might cost them to be honest.
A good idea should be able to stand on its own, judged on its merits rather than on who said it or what saying it might risk. Not everyone is free to explore these questions in the open. A job, a career, a scientific reputation, or pressure from a community, a politics, or a faith can make honesty expensive. Here, none of that is attached to you. You are a username and a voice, and that is enough.
The wider web keeps asking for more of you: more accounts, more identity, more of your information handed over just to take part. This is meant to be a step the other way. A quieter place, and a little peace of mind, where the aim is not to know who you are but to think clearly together. If people from very different lives can meet these six questions honestly and in good faith, that is a small step toward the unity and betterment this whole project is reaching for.