Documentation

Limitations

This tool is useful. It is also limited. Knowing where it stops being useful is part of using it well.

What this tool DOES

  • Surfaces fact-check reviews published by major IFCN-verified outlets, when they exist.
  • Indexes news coverage from the last ~30 days across 65+ languages via GDELT.
  • Looks up encyclopedia background via Wikipedia.
  • Scores the editorial credibility of the outlets covering a topic.
  • Detects spoofed domains, obvious clickbait, and missing bylines on URLs you submit.
  • Flags claim types that need expert review (medical, legal, financial).
  • Shows you exactly which APIs returned which evidence — every card has a real, clickable URL.

What this tool DOES NOT do

  • It does not establish truth. The verdict reflects what fact-checkers said — not what is true in some absolute sense.
  • It cannot read paywalled or login-gated articles.
  • It cannot verify future predictions.
  • It cannot evaluate opinions, value judgments, or contested definitions.
  • It cannot detect novel disinformation that has not been fact-checked anywhere.
  • It cannot replace a doctor, lawyer, financial advisor, or any other professional.
  • It cannot guarantee that an outlet is unbiased — only that its track record is documented.

Known data gaps

  • GDELT only indexes the last 30 days. Older claims will return no news evidence.
  • Google Fact Check Tools coverage is uneven. Specific phrasings matter; rewording the claim can change which fact-checks match.
  • Local source rules cover ~80 outlets. Anything outside that list gets TLD-only inference.
  • Stance reconciliation is heuristic. Fact-check ratings that don't materially match your claim are demoted to “related,” not used as a verdict.
  • Big publishers often block bots. If we can't fetch a URL you submitted, domain-level signals are still shown.
  • English-language only. Non-English claims work only if matching English coverage exists.

What we will NEVER do

  • Use mock data, fake demo results, or fake trending topics.
  • Iframe arbitrary external sites — most block embedding, and it can hide source identity.
  • Use AI to invent quotes, sources, or stances. The verdict comes from fact-checker output, not language-model guessing.
  • Require an account, payment, or share your queries with third parties beyond the public APIs we consult.
  • Claim a result is “100% true” or “100% false” or use “AI truth detector” framing.

When you should NOT rely on this alone

  • Medical decisions — talk to a licensed clinician.
  • Legal decisions — talk to a licensed attorney.
  • Financial decisions — talk to a licensed advisor.
  • Time-sensitive breaking news that may still be developing.
  • Topics where you need the primary source (a study, ruling, or filing) — find that, not a news summary.
Use this tool as one input in your verification process, alongside primary sources and your own judgement. It is a transparency layer for source quality, not an oracle.