1087:"To start checking a nonfiction piece, you begin by consulting the writer about how the piece was put together and using the writer’s sources as well as our own departmental sources. We then essentially take the piece apart and put it back together again. You make sure that the names and dates are right, but then if it is a John McPhee piece, you make sure that the USGS report that he read, he read correctly... Or if we describe the basis on which the FDA approved or disapproved the medical tests that ImClone used for Erbitux, then you need to find out what the complexities of that whole situation were."
1000:
1228:): "I was helping edit an article... my boss had sent it back to me, suggesting it was a little bland... I simply tacked on sentence ... And it worked. My boss liked it better. The problem was, I completely forgot to send the piece back to the to see if she was okay with my little addition. I had meant to -- I know you can't just insert something without the writer's approval. But I forgot... the is complaining that
24:
741:
234:
might matter some, depending on the source, but it's probably best to avoid giving much importance to man-of-the-year type logrolling. Most everyone has enemies, so a lot of people have been called a liar by somebody. If there's a pattern of disinterested people doing that then it might indicate a problem.
987:
since people do generally buy newspapers based (partly) on the paper's general reputation for veracity and not on the names of particular reporters. It depends a great deal on the newspaper, of course, and business incentives to get facts right varies a lot among newspapers, and so does editorial rigor.
1066:" long piece... received her full-time attention for three or four weeks... Each word in the piece that has even a shred of fact clinging to it is scrutinized... After an error gets into The New Yorker, heat-seeking missiles rise off the earth and home in on the author, the fact-checker, and the editor"
399:
is by the popular, prolific, and well-reviewed expert Marc Eliot. Most editors would assume that his book is a reliable source. But... from the book: "Screwball is a particularly apt term for a certain type of movie that, like the baseball pitch of the same name, travels a fast but unpredictable path
1289:
which tells of a case of an article mentioning Abe Vigoda. A "top editor" added "the late" in front of Vigoda's name (Vigoda was alive). The fact checker took it out, but the editor insisted, and it was published in the article. (FWIW I think this was the start of the "Abe Vigoda is dead" meme which
666:
It seems to. It's a book, and it's not online, and no page number is given, so this makes it hard to judge using the limited preview that Google Books provides. The ref'd material discusses Mendel at length and the material in the article is a severe reduction and simplification of this. It looks to
233:
If they have been fired for plagiarism or indicted for perjury or successfully sued for libel or whatever, those are data points. It's probably best to be skeptical about other markers. Matters unrelated to their writing such as sex scandals might or might not indicate anything. Awards and accolades
986:
When you cite a newspaper, you are also relying on the author but mainly on the publication. Rather than checking facts, newspaper editors will expect reporters to check their own facts and they'll fire them if they don't and reporters know this. Newspapers do have an incentive to worry about facts
246:
Even if they are utterly disinterested, they can still be inaccurate, of course. But if they are well to the right end of this continuum, that's a big red flag. It doesn't mean everything they say is inaccurate, of course, but it's an important data point. You have to be honest here – if they are a
653:
No, neither. We're just using this an example. (If the material described Mendel himself as "the founder of genetics" or something, this could be contested, since Mendel's laws were forgotten and probably not much would be different if he'd never lived. However, the material is careful not to make
136:
Contentious material is material that people might take a position on for ideological reasons. Contested material is just material that another editor has made a reasonable challenge to or where sources disagree. (Whether a person was born on April 19 or April 20 might be contested but it's not an
961:
It's an acceptable ref. It's a book, and we don't like to use books as sources, since books aren't usually fact-checked, so we are basically depending on Bowler's reputation. It appears to be excellent. There are no markers to indicate that he would have any incentive to get this wrong (quite the
1100:
has a good reputation and a strong business incentive to get their facts straight since their core constituency includes high-powered decision-maker types who require reliable data and pay a lot for it, but so far we don't have a cite describing their operation, so... ) There have been sporadic
638:
Mendel demonstrated that the inheritance of certain traits in pea plants follows particular patterns, now referred to as the laws of
Mendelian inheritance. Although the significance of Mendel's work was not recognized until the turn of the 20th century, the independent rediscovery of these laws
220:
If they work for a salary, they have an incentive to not get fired. That means if they are a professor at an established university and that's their main source of income, they have an incentive to avoid outright mendacity, since that'll get you fired. Newspaper reporter, same thing. But other
788:
a strong public voice against creationism, but 1) that shouldn't affect his regard of the standing of Mendel in particular as opposed to other figures, and 2) that's not really being polemic, that's just being a biologist, as essentially 100% of reputable biologists are opposed to
1063:
is famous for the rigor of its editing (including fact checking). According to the
Columbia Journalism Review (2010) they employ 16 fact-checkers. That's a lot for small weekly that doesn't specialize in hard news. Here's a New Yorker fact-checker recounting her service:
982:
When you cite a book, you are relying almost entirely on the author. Book publishers have little incentive to worry about facts since people generally buy books based on the author rather than the publisher. For this reason books are seldom very reliable sources.
1253:
approval"? (If the article writer says "Sure, I don't care", it's OK then?) Where is the indication that person was put in fear for their career over this? I don't see that either. It's only one anecdote, but this is not a good look for
1070:"Sometimes a phrase would contain hidden facts, as in 'Jane’s youngest son.' You’d have to check maternity and birth order, but you’d also have to confirm that Jane had at least three sons for one to be considered 'youngest.'"
221:
entities might encourage mendacity if it supports their mission. If they make a living writing books or whatnot, their main financial incentive is to increase sales rather than necessarily get their facts right.
1135:
173:
This provides a quick-and-dirty (albeit imperfect) gauge of notability, which is not the same as veracity but is a data point. And the article and its links provide a good start in figuring out who the person
728:
A number of scholarly works. His article lists some of them. He's written a textbook and a few other books. Judging just by the titles these look to be high-end general-interest books for the educated layman.
137:
ideological issue.) If it's not contentious, the source is only going to be wrong because of failure of diligence. If it's contentious, we also have to be aware of the possibility of deliberate bias.
1201:
is a list kept by
Jeffrey Beall of questionable and shady open-access scientific journals. Articles in journals on Beall's List are presumed not reviewed and should usually be treated as blog posts.
1080:"he material originally appeared in The New Yorker, which, along with Time magazine, originated the practice of fact checking and has for many years been famous for the reliability of its content."
1264:
990:
360:
Some magazines and newspapers rely on their reputation for veracity as part of their marketing model. If they don't pay attention to that they're eventually out of business. Others, not so much.
1564:
1159:"Around 250 to 300 stories go up on the forbes site each day. ... No matter their background or compensation, all contributors can publish their own work without so much as a cursory edit
1127:
deals with political statements. It has a business model of 1) checking facts – that's what they do and it's all they do, and 2) being strictly non-partisan. So based on this the
780:
Does the author have an opinion on the matter? On the continuum running from "utterly disinterested investigator or reporter" to "complete polemicist", where does this person fit?
514:
Does the author have an opinion on the matter? On the continuum running from "utterly disinterested investigator or reporter" to "complete polemicist", where does this person fit?
241:
Does the author have an opinion on the matter? On the continuum running from "utterly disinterested investigator or reporter" to "complete polemicist", where does this person fit?
1121:. The BBC has a rigorous set of guidelines including for accuracy, impartiality, fairness, and the reporting of controversial events such as war, terror and emergencies.
1748:
It's a blog, so it's not a very reliable source itself... and the comments are completely unreliable of course, but interesting and probably true. We couldn't even
1417:
1305:
862:
Not sure. It's
University of California Press and that's a reputable outfit. Whether they check Bowler's work or just trust him I don't know. Probably the latter.
716:
He has a Ph. D. from the
University of Toronto. He's worked as a teacher or professor. He's a past President of the British Society for the History of Science.
1286:
1180:
1237:
On the one hand, the person knows they messed up and feels bad, and there was a "little scandal". On the other hand... why did this person even
338:. A bigger operation means more resources for fact-checking, a bigger reputation to uphold, and greater likelihood of employing top-tier people.
1677:
which became defunct in 2015. Silverman's work details many media errors, but is mostly a list of retractions and isn't about fact-checking.
1835:
1712:
1042:
43:
It contains the advice or opinions of one or more
Knowledge contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
1466:
1249:
the subject is called to verify the quote? There isn't one. And what is the meaning of "you can't just insert something without the
82:
Remember, this checklist is useful to identify whether a source is likely to be appropriate for general use in an average article.
1022:
But don't just throw your favorite paper into this list. A good citation describing their fact-checking operation would be helpful.
289:, strongly (and sensibly) indicates that these are the only sources that are assumed to be reliable. (This doesn't prove that they
1637:
426:
112:
A succinct description of what we want to find out, e.g. "We want to find out what the actual area of
Baltimore is" or whatever.
86:. A source can only be considered reliable when the source's qualities are compared against the qualities editors want to see
1489:
784:
He's an academic. There's no reason to believe that he'd have any incentive to either glorify or deprecate Mendel's role. He
293:
reliable in a given case, just that the assumption that they are is your starting point.) Everything else is up for debate.
1036:
full-time fact-checkers – more than any other publication on the planet – and a very rigorous and well-organized operation.
1007:
1802:
842:
Is it a peer-reviewed scholarly journal, or a magazine (or newspaper) known to have an effective fact-checking operation?
536:
Is it a peer-reviewed scholarly journal, or a magazine (or newspaper) known to have an effective fact-checking operation?
273:
Is it a peer-reviewed scholarly journal, or a magazine (or newspaper) known to have an effective fact-checking operation?
1506:
The
Economist pens one of its customarily acerbic book reviews in which it notes an extraordinary number of basic errors
760:
He's a professor at Queens
College. This is probably his primary source of income, although he also gets book royalties.
1666:
1573:
1553:
1221:
1186:
828:
44:
962:
contrary, he has an academic reputation to uphold) and every indication that he has the competence to get it right.
1117:
83:
1339:
1232:
put words in her mouth... I feel terrible... I'm hoping this little scandal will blow over, and I think it will."
320:
1443:
641:
As with many cites, it's sometimes not clear exactly what's being ref'd – it might be only the second sentence.
1587:
An innovative essayist and his fact-checker do battle about the use of truth and the definition of nonfiction.
1011:
400:
before somehow managing to cross the plate for a perfect strike." But that's not an accurate description of a
1175:
is an old name in
American journalism, but as their print operation died they fell upon hard times; the 2012
48:
1245:? And where was the fact-checker in all this -- where is the person taking the article from the editor and
979:
whose main brief is fixing grammar and style. Copy editors may check facts, but only on an ad hoc basis.
685:
772:
Don't know of any. He's a member of good standing of various scholarly bodies, according to his article.
970:
36:
1285:
does have fact checkers, although possibly intern or junior new hire level I think, but then you have
1083:
84:
No source is always unreliable for every statement, and no source is always reliable for any statement
1365:
196:
This is a rough indicator of post-publication peer review and acceptance. (Pro tips: if there is a
149:
For instance, if it supports a quote, do the quoted words indeed appear in the source, and so forth.
200:
link, this will often show "where cited" for scientific publications. If it's a book, searching at
1732:
975:
Most large magazines employ fact-checkers. Book publishers and most newspapers don't. They employ
1391:
1616:
1154:
282:
66:
874:
Not applicable. UC Berkely is a big school and their publishing arm is also a big operation.
259:
1688:
1314:
8:
205:
87:
1519:
1206:
58:
1211:, an established American magazine, does not come off too well in this anecdote (from
965:
119:
1663:
1570:
1550:
1218:
1144:
825:
286:
886:
University of California Press, Berkely. It's a highly reputable academic publisher.
51:. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.
32:
1153:
nameplate, these are blog posts and are not fact-checked at all. According to the
1041:
But just to point out, any publication is vulnerable if a reporter is inclined to
156:
701:
882:
What about the publisher? What kind of outfit are they? What's their reputation?
736:
Is the author, or this work, cited in other reliable sources? In academic works?
555:
What about the publisher? What kind of outfit are they? What's their reputation?
499:
Is the author, or this work, cited in other reliable sources? In academic works?
345:
What about the publisher? What kind of outfit are they? What's their reputation?
191:
Is the author, or this work, cited in other reliable sources? In academic works?
93:
1310:
1195:
and we're not sure of if their reliability has recovered any or if so how much.
1176:
1124:
1059:
330:
1660:
Regret the Error: How Media Mistakes Pollute the Press and Imperil Free Speech
100:
1829:
1595:
1179:
fiasco showed that, at least as of 2012, they weren't fact-checking at all. (
1092:
197:
247:
polemicist who supports your version of things, they are still a polemicist.
1300:
976:
684:
Peter J. Bowler. He's a historian of biological science and a professor at
294:
278:
1149:
material, specifically that found at "www.forbes.com/sites/". Despite the
1053:
also. From the crooked timber of mankind, no straight thing was ever made.
1028:
297:
is lengthy and there's a lot of hedging, but that's a reasonable summary.
1538:
1136:
Journalistic entities known to have bad (or no) fact-checking operations
372:
1082:- Ben Yagoda Here's from a 2012 piece in the Columbia Journalism Review
712:
What are the author's academic credentials and professional experience?
604:
489:
What are the author's academic credentials and professional experience?
384:
Does the source have the expertise on the particular topic being ref'd?
181:
What are the author's academic credentials and professional experience?
1681:
1198:
1131:
would be that they are fairly reliable. But we need more proof, so...
1192:
1032:. According to the Columbia Journalism Review (2010) they have about
401:
910:
It's high, as far as that goes, since they're an academic publisher.
1757:
1170:
79:
Here's a checklist to help organize your evaluation of a source.
1777:
1752:
about using those in an article, but this isn't one, so read away.
1818:
Coates comments on the Niall Ferguson affair and the downfall of
1674:
991:
Journalistic entities known to have good fact-checking operations
620:
Determine if Gregor Mendel's work was the foundation of genetics.
1713:"Top fact checkers and news accuracy experts gather in Germany"
1321:
328:
are both scholarly journals, but they're not equal. Ditto the
1467:"Portland Myths & The Economist's Need for Fact Checking"
1444:"Not the Treasury view...: The Economist: fact check fail..."
939:
Yes, certainly. He has considerable expertise in the subject.
1593:
768:
What about reputation? Are there any big character markers?
509:
What about reputation? Are there any big character markers?
228:
What about reputation? Are there any big character markers?
201:
1294:
599:
408:
to be used as a source on Cary Grant, but he doesn't have
1113:
seems to employ fact checking in the book review process.
208:
describes some other citation-finding tools and methods.)
1306:
Knowledge:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources
639:
formed the foundation of the modern science of genetics.
318:
Size doesn't prove anything, but it's a data point. The
204:(enclose the book title in quotes) can bring up cites.)
1446:
National Institute of Economic and Social Research blog
935:
Does the source have standing to address the material?
667:
be a reasonable extrapolation from the ref'd material.
582:
Does the source have standing to address the material?
379:
Does the source have standing to address the material?
746:
The Oxford companion to the history of modern science
1340:"Inside the World's Largest Fact Checking Operation"
1775:
1755:
1389:
1689:"Fact-Checking – Fakten finden, Fehler vermeiden"
1827:
1800:
1635:
1563:D'Agata, John; Fingal, Jim (February 27, 2012).
819:
1710:
1337:
1317:that detects and highlights unreliable sources
1594:John D'Agata and Jim Fingal (February 2012).
1562:
906:What's their business incentive for veracity?
633:What's the material that the source supports?
565:What's their business incentive for veracity?
457:What's the material that the source supports?
355:What's their business incentive for veracity?
126:What's the material that the source supports?
1614:
854:If not, is there any reason to believe that
824:. Berkeley: University of California Press.
662:Does the source indeed support the material?
541:If not, is there any reason to believe that
467:Does the source indeed support the material?
412:to be used as a source on American baseball.
304:If not, is there any reason to believe that
144:Does the source indeed support the material?
1363:
1730:
1415:
1078:", get it? These people are serious.) And
1657:
696:Does the author have a Knowledge article?
484:Does the author have a Knowledge article?
168:Does the author have a Knowledge article?
404:pitch at all; not even close. Eliot has
1487:
1828:
1441:
1390:Virginia Heffernan (August 20, 2010).
1212:
1636:Hannah Goldfield (February 9, 2012).
1544:
1333:
1331:
1801:Ta-Nehisi Coates (August 21, 2012).
1776:Katherine Goldstein (June 6, 2011).
994:
18:
1836:Knowledge essays about verification
1756:Brendan I. Koerner (May 23, 2003).
1488:McArdle, Megan (January 24, 2011).
1464:
1392:"What 'Fact-Checking' Means Online"
724:What else has the author published?
494:What else has the author published?
186:What else has the author published?
13:
1490:"Why Don't Publishers Check Facts"
1442:Portes, Jonathan (15 March 2012).
1328:
1101:complaints about fact-checking at
756:How does the author make a living?
504:How does the author make a living?
215:How does the author make a living?
49:thoroughly vetted by the community
45:Knowledge's policies or guidelines
14:
1847:
1758:"Who Uses Fact Checkers, Anyway?"
1711:Craig Silverman (April 9, 2010).
1615:Laura Miller (February 9, 2012).
1469:. Demographia Observations (blog)
1338:Craig Silverman (April 9, 2010).
822:Evolution: the history of an idea
427:Blank checklist (to copy and use)
1364:John McPhee (February 9, 2009).
1118:British Broadcasting Corporation
1072:(If only two, it would be "young
998:
22:
1465:Cox, Wendell (April 20, 2010).
1418:"Fact Checking 'In Cold Blood'"
1217:. Simon & Schuster. p. 48.
1191:) Since 2013 they are owned by
858:has checked the author's facts?
649:Is it contentious or contested?
545:has checked the author's facts?
462:Is it contentious or contested?
321:New England Journal of Medicine
308:has checked the author's facts?
131:Is it contentious or contested?
1733:"The Mystery of Fact Checking"
1731:Kevin Drum (January 4, 2011).
1569:. W. W. Norton & Company.
1545:Smith, Sarah Harrison (2004).
1512:
1481:
1458:
1435:
1409:
1383:
1357:
616:What are we trying to do here?
445:What are we trying to do here?
326:North Carolina Literary Review
107:What are we trying to do here?
1:
1617:"In Defense of Fact Checking"
1416:Ben Yagoda (March 20, 2013).
1241:tacking on an extra sentence
1803:"In Praise of Fact-Checkers"
7:
1045:. This has happened at the
433:Blank checklist for copying
10:
1852:
1638:"The Art of Fact-Checking"
1344:Columbia Journalism Review
1290:became rather widespread.)
1155:Columbia Journalism Review
686:Queen's University Belfast
56:
37:Knowledge:Reliable sources
16:Essay on editing Knowledge
1658:Silverman, Craig (2007).
1043:lie and falsify her notes
870:What's their circulation?
820:Bowler, Peter J. (2003).
550:What's their circulation?
336:Easton (Maryland) Gazette
313:What's their circulation?
1596:"What Happened in Vegas"
1547:The Fact Checker's Bible
1366:"Checkpoints (abstract)"
88:for a specific statement
1662:. Union Square Press.
1239:consider for one moment
894:Do they have an agenda?
560:Do they have an agenda?
350:Do they have an agenda?
1566:The Lifespan of a Fact
1520:"Editorial Guidelines"
1213:Jacobs, A. J. (2005).
966:Supplementary material
1673:Silverman also ran a
748:and some other works.
47:, as it has not been
1822:, and other matters.
1012:adding missing items
744:in J. L. Heilbron's
1778:"Orgasm Guaranteed"
971:About fact-checking
94:Annotated checklist
1693:Netzwerk Recherche
1105:, but as noted in
1010:; you can help by
680:Who is the author?
479:Who is the author?
281:, in its sections
163:Who is the author?
1793:Fact-checking at
1675:multi-person blog
1019:
1018:
77:
76:
1843:
1817:
1815:
1813:
1792:
1790:
1788:
1772:
1770:
1768:
1747:
1745:
1743:
1727:
1725:
1723:
1717:Regret the Error
1707:
1704:
1702:
1700:
1672:
1652:
1650:
1648:
1631:
1629:
1627:
1610:
1608:
1606:
1589:
1584:
1582:
1559:
1532:
1531:
1529:
1527:
1516:
1510:
1509:
1502:
1500:
1485:
1479:
1478:
1476:
1474:
1462:
1456:
1455:
1453:
1451:
1439:
1433:
1432:
1430:
1428:
1413:
1407:
1406:
1404:
1402:
1387:
1381:
1380:
1378:
1376:
1361:
1355:
1354:
1352:
1350:
1335:
1271:article. It has
1227:
1162:
1088:
1081:
1071:
1067:
1002:
1001:
995:
834:
740:Yes, some. It's
69:
26:
25:
19:
1851:
1850:
1846:
1845:
1844:
1842:
1841:
1840:
1826:
1825:
1811:
1809:
1786:
1784:
1766:
1764:
1741:
1739:
1721:
1719:
1705:
1698:
1696:
1687:
1684:
1669:
1646:
1644:
1625:
1623:
1604:
1602:
1580:
1578:
1576:
1556:
1541:
1539:Further reading
1536:
1535:
1525:
1523:
1518:
1517:
1513:
1498:
1496:
1486:
1482:
1472:
1470:
1463:
1459:
1449:
1447:
1440:
1436:
1426:
1424:
1414:
1410:
1400:
1398:
1388:
1384:
1374:
1372:
1362:
1358:
1348:
1346:
1336:
1329:
1324:
1297:
1282:People Magazine
1273:spelling errors
1224:
1215:The Know-It-All
1158:
1138:
1086:
1079:
1069:
1065:
1015:
999:
993:
973:
968:
959:
930:
831:
809:
808:The publication
742:listed as a ref
702:Peter J. Bowler
675:
628:
611:
607:
602:
597:
596:
594:
577:
526:
525:The publication
474:
452:
440:
435:
434:
429:
375:
262:
260:The publication
159:
122:
103:
96:
73:
72:
65:
61:
53:
52:
23:
17:
12:
11:
5:
1849:
1839:
1838:
1824:
1823:
1798:
1773:
1753:
1728:
1708:
1683:
1682:External links
1680:
1679:
1678:
1668:978-1402751530
1667:
1655:
1654:
1653:
1642:The New Yorker
1632:
1611:
1575:978-0393340730
1574:
1560:
1555:978-0385721066
1554:
1540:
1537:
1534:
1533:
1511:
1480:
1457:
1434:
1408:
1396:New York Times
1382:
1356:
1326:
1325:
1323:
1320:
1319:
1318:
1308:
1303:
1296:
1293:
1292:
1291:
1277:
1276:
1260:
1259:
1234:
1233:
1223:978-0743250627
1222:
1202:
1196:
1177:Niall Ferguson
1166:
1137:
1134:
1133:
1132:
1122:
1114:
1089:
1068:Look at this:
1060:The New Yorker
1055:
1054:
1038:
1037:
1017:
1016:
1005:
1003:
992:
989:
972:
969:
967:
964:
960:
957:
955:
954:
953:
952:
947:Anything else?
943:
942:
941:
940:
928:
926:
925:
924:
923:
918:Anything else?
914:
913:
912:
911:
902:
901:
900:
899:
890:
889:
888:
887:
878:
877:
876:
875:
866:
865:
864:
863:
850:
849:
848:
847:
838:
837:
836:
835:
829:
807:
805:
804:
803:
802:
797:Anything else?
793:
792:
791:
790:
776:
775:
774:
773:
764:
763:
762:
761:
752:
751:
750:
749:
732:
731:
730:
729:
720:
719:
718:
717:
708:
707:
706:
705:
700:Yes, he does,
692:
691:
690:
689:
673:
671:
670:
669:
668:
658:
657:
656:
655:
645:
644:
643:
642:
626:
624:
623:
622:
621:
609:
606:
603:
601:
598:
592:
590:
589:
587:Anything else?
584:
575:
573:
572:
570:Anything else?
567:
562:
557:
552:
547:
538:
533:
524:
522:
521:
519:Anything else?
516:
511:
506:
501:
496:
491:
486:
481:
472:
470:
469:
464:
459:
450:
448:
447:
438:
436:
432:
431:
430:
428:
425:
424:
423:
421:Anything else?
417:
416:
415:
414:
395:The biography
389:
388:
387:
386:
374:
371:
370:
369:
367:Anything else?
364:
363:
362:
352:
347:
342:
341:
340:
331:New York Times
310:
301:
300:
299:
283:WP:SCHOLARSHIP
270:
261:
258:
257:
256:
254:Anything else?
251:
250:
249:
238:
237:
236:
225:
224:
223:
212:
211:
210:
188:
183:
178:
177:
176:
165:
158:
155:
154:
153:
152:
151:
141:
140:
139:
128:
121:
118:
117:
116:
115:
114:
102:
99:
95:
92:
75:
74:
71:
70:
62:
57:
54:
42:
41:
29:
27:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1848:
1837:
1834:
1833:
1831:
1821:
1808:
1804:
1799:
1796:
1783:
1779:
1774:
1763:
1759:
1754:
1751:
1738:
1734:
1729:
1718:
1714:
1709:
1694:
1690:
1686:
1685:
1676:
1670:
1665:
1661:
1656:
1643:
1639:
1633:
1622:
1618:
1612:
1601:
1597:
1591:
1590:
1588:
1577:
1572:
1568:
1567:
1561:
1557:
1552:
1548:
1543:
1542:
1521:
1515:
1508:
1507:
1495:
1491:
1484:
1468:
1461:
1445:
1438:
1423:
1419:
1412:
1397:
1393:
1386:
1371:
1370:The New Yoker
1367:
1360:
1345:
1341:
1334:
1332:
1327:
1316:
1312:
1309:
1307:
1304:
1302:
1299:
1298:
1288:
1287:this anecdote
1284:
1283:
1279:
1278:
1274:
1270:
1266:
1262:
1261:
1257:
1252:
1248:
1244:
1240:
1236:
1235:
1231:
1225:
1220:
1216:
1210:
1209:
1208:
1203:
1200:
1197:
1194:
1190:
1189:
1184:
1183:
1178:
1174:
1173:
1172:
1167:
1165:
1161:
1156:
1152:
1148:
1147:
1146:
1140:
1139:
1130:
1126:
1123:
1120:
1119:
1115:
1112:
1108:
1104:
1103:The Economist
1099:
1098:The Economist
1095:
1094:
1093:The Economist
1090:
1084:
1077:
1076:
1062:
1061:
1057:
1056:
1052:
1048:
1044:
1040:
1039:
1035:
1031:
1030:
1026:
1025:
1024:
1023:
1013:
1009:
1006:This list is
1004:
997:
996:
988:
984:
980:
978:
963:
950:
949:
948:
945:
944:
938:
937:
936:
933:
932:
931:
921:
920:
919:
916:
915:
909:
908:
907:
904:
903:
897:
896:
895:
892:
891:
885:
884:
883:
880:
879:
873:
872:
871:
868:
867:
861:
860:
859:
857:
852:
851:
845:
844:
843:
840:
839:
832:
830:0-520-23693-9
827:
823:
818:It's a book:
817:
816:
815:
812:
811:
810:
800:
799:
798:
795:
794:
787:
783:
782:
781:
778:
777:
771:
770:
769:
766:
765:
759:
758:
757:
754:
753:
747:
743:
739:
738:
737:
734:
733:
727:
726:
725:
722:
721:
715:
714:
713:
710:
709:
703:
699:
698:
697:
694:
693:
687:
683:
682:
681:
678:
677:
676:
665:
664:
663:
660:
659:
652:
651:
650:
647:
646:
640:
636:
635:
634:
631:
630:
629:
619:
618:
617:
614:
613:
612:
595:
588:
585:
583:
580:
579:
578:
571:
568:
566:
563:
561:
558:
556:
553:
551:
548:
546:
544:
539:
537:
534:
532:
529:
528:
527:
520:
517:
515:
512:
510:
507:
505:
502:
500:
497:
495:
492:
490:
487:
485:
482:
480:
477:
476:
475:
468:
465:
463:
460:
458:
455:
454:
453:
446:
443:
442:
441:
422:
419:
418:
413:
409:
405:
403:
396:
393:
392:
391:
390:
385:
382:
381:
380:
377:
376:
368:
365:
361:
358:
357:
356:
353:
351:
348:
346:
343:
339:
335:
332:
329:
325:
322:
319:
316:
315:
314:
311:
309:
307:
302:
298:
296:
290:
288:
284:
280:
276:
275:
274:
271:
269:
266:
265:
264:
255:
252:
248:
244:
243:
242:
239:
235:
231:
230:
229:
226:
222:
218:
217:
216:
213:
209:
207:
203:
199:
194:
193:
192:
189:
187:
184:
182:
179:
175:
171:
170:
169:
166:
164:
161:
160:
150:
147:
146:
145:
142:
138:
134:
133:
132:
129:
127:
124:
123:
113:
110:
109:
108:
105:
104:
98:
91:
89:
85:
80:
68:
64:
63:
60:
55:
50:
46:
40:
38:
34:
28:
21:
20:
1819:
1810:. Retrieved
1807:The Atlantic
1806:
1795:Cosmopolitan
1794:
1787:September 2,
1785:. Retrieved
1781:
1767:September 2,
1765:. Retrieved
1761:
1749:
1742:September 2,
1740:. Retrieved
1737:Mother Jones
1736:
1722:September 2,
1720:. Retrieved
1716:
1699:September 2,
1697:. Retrieved
1692:
1659:
1647:February 12,
1645:. Retrieved
1641:
1626:February 12,
1624:. Retrieved
1620:
1605:February 12,
1603:. Retrieved
1599:
1586:
1579:. Retrieved
1565:
1546:
1524:. Retrieved
1514:
1505:
1504:
1497:. Retrieved
1494:The Atlantic
1493:
1483:
1471:. Retrieved
1460:
1448:. Retrieved
1437:
1425:. Retrieved
1421:
1411:
1401:September 2,
1399:. Retrieved
1395:
1385:
1375:September 2,
1373:. Retrieved
1369:
1359:
1347:. Retrieved
1343:
1301:Fact checker
1281:
1280:
1272:
1268:
1255:
1250:
1246:
1242:
1238:
1229:
1214:
1205:
1204:
1199:Beall's List
1187:
1181:
1169:
1168:
1163:
1160:
1150:
1143:
1142:
1128:
1116:
1110:
1107:The Atlantic
1106:
1102:
1097:
1091:
1074:
1073:
1058:
1051:New Republic
1050:
1046:
1033:
1027:
1021:
1020:
985:
981:
977:copy editors
974:
956:
946:
934:
927:
917:
905:
893:
881:
869:
855:
853:
841:
821:
813:
806:
796:
789:creationism.
785:
779:
767:
755:
745:
735:
723:
711:
695:
679:
672:
661:
654:this claim.)
648:
637:
632:
627:The material
625:
615:
608:
591:
586:
581:
574:
569:
564:
559:
554:
549:
542:
540:
535:
530:
523:
518:
513:
508:
503:
498:
493:
488:
483:
478:
471:
466:
461:
456:
451:The material
449:
444:
437:
420:
411:
407:
398:
394:
383:
378:
366:
359:
354:
349:
344:
337:
333:
327:
323:
317:
312:
305:
303:
292:
277:
272:
267:
263:
253:
245:
240:
232:
227:
219:
214:
206:WP:NJournals
202:Google Books
195:
190:
185:
180:
172:
167:
162:
148:
143:
135:
130:
125:
120:The material
111:
106:
97:
81:
78:
67:WP:RSVETTING
30:
1706:(in German)
1581:February 1,
1526:19 December
1315:user-script
1247:making sure
1029:Der Spiegel
814:What is it?
531:What is it?
268:What is it?
31:This is an
1812:August 21,
1549:. Anchor.
1427:August 21,
1322:References
1267:is a 2017
1243:to a quote
1129:assumption
1125:PolitiFact
1047:New Yorker
1008:incomplete
674:The author
605:Example #1
473:The author
397:Cary Grant
287:WP:NEWSORG
157:The author
39:guideline.
1592:Excerpt:
1193:IBT Media
1111:Economist
402:screwball
1830:Category
1820:Newsweek
1634:Review:
1613:Review:
1600:Harper's
1499:March 5,
1473:March 5,
1450:March 5,
1349:March 5,
1295:See also
1251:writer's
1171:Newsweek
1049:and the
610:The goal
600:Examples
439:The goal
410:standing
406:standing
334:and the
324:and the
101:The goal
59:Shortcut
1311:WP:UPSD
1275:. So...
1269:Esquire
1256:Esquire
1230:Esquire
1207:Esquire
1188:NYTimes
1182:Poynter
958:Summary
593:Summary
35:on the
1695:. 2010
1263:Also,
1151:Forbes
1145:Forbes
1109:, the
1034:eighty
856:anyone
543:anyone
306:anyone
1782:Slate
1762:Slate
1750:think
1621:Slate
1522:. BBC
1422:Slate
1141:Some
929:Other
576:Other
373:Other
295:WP:RS
279:WP:RS
33:essay
1814:2012
1789:2011
1769:2011
1744:2011
1724:2011
1701:2011
1664:ISBN
1649:2012
1628:2012
1607:2012
1583:2012
1571:ISBN
1551:ISBN
1528:2015
1501:2013
1475:2013
1452:2013
1429:2012
1403:2011
1377:2011
1351:2013
1313:- A
1265:here
1219:ISBN
826:ISBN
285:and
1096:. (
951:No.
922:No.
898:No.
846:No.
801:No.
291:are
198:DOI
174:is.
90:.
1832::
1805:.
1780:.
1760:.
1735:.
1715:.
1691:.
1640:.
1619:.
1598:.
1585:.
1503:.
1492:.
1420:.
1394:.
1368:.
1342:.
1330:^
1157:,
1085::
1075:er
786:is
1816:.
1797:.
1791:.
1771:.
1746:.
1726:.
1703:.
1671:.
1651:.
1630:.
1609:.
1558:.
1530:.
1477:.
1454:.
1431:.
1405:.
1379:.
1353:.
1258:.
1226:.
1185:,
1164:.
1014:.
833:.
704:.
688:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.