<img src="https://trc.taboola.com/1321591/log/3/unip?en=page_view" width="0" height="0" style="display:none">

Why do we fact check?

We rely on information to make meaningful decisions that affect our lives, but the nature of the internet means that misinformation reaches more people faster than ever before.

That’s why we’ve created Logically.
Man shocked by the content on his mobile phone

Fact Check with Logically

search icon

Our mobile app gives you access to the largest team of dedicated fact checkers on the planet. If you spot something online that you’re not sure about, send it to us and we’ll investigate it for you.

check icon

Our fact checking team will do our best to determine whether or not this particular bit of information is reliable, and send you a short report that you can share with your friends, so you can do your part to fight misinformation.

Download the app

Fact check of the day

No. of Fact Checks done

12162

Live Fact Check Count

198

How does it work?

Submit an article URL and our AI will pick out the key claims for you to choose from, or type in a claim and submit it in the Fact Check tab in the Logically App. Our Fact Finder AI will automatically retrieve evidence and fact checks related to your claim, checking it against a database of trusted sources. If the claim has been checked before, our AI will return the result automatically or if not you can send it to our fact checking team.

If our Fact Finder AI doesn’t shine enough light on your claim, you can request a Fact Check in the Logically app. Logically employs the largest dedicated team of fact checkers on the planet, who will thoroughly investigate your claim and provide you with a verdict. You can set notifications to track the progress of your claim in the app.

Once the team has finished, you can access the finished report through the app. It will give you a verdict, a quick summary of our team’s findings, as well as a more detailed report that tells you how they went about conducting the fact check and why they reached the conclusion that they did. The sources that they used are linked to at the bottom, so you can go and check for yourself, and we’ve designed our reports to be easily shareable so that you can pass them on to your friends and family.

FAQs

How we choose claims?

How we conduct fact checks?

How we rate fact checks

Non-partisanship

How we choose sources

Corrections

Logically aims to publish an informative and useful judgement on any claim submitted to us by a user. Rarely, we will not be able to responsibly issue a judgement on a claim, and may reject it.

What can we check?

Logically will investigate, verify and adjudicate any suitable claim submitted to us by a user.

A suitable claim:

  • Is any statement made in a public or publicly accessible forum.
  • Can be properly assessed as more or less reasonable, or simply true or false.
  • Can be adjudicated on the basis of publicly available evidence and commonly held standards of reasoning.

Logically may reject a claim for the following reasons:

  • We can only check assertions, or sentences which can be interpreted as assertions. An assertion is any sentence which aims to make somebody believe something to be true. If a submitted claim cannot be interpreted as an assertion, it will be rejected.
  • Sometimes an otherwise valid claim cannot be settled by any evidence to which we have access, nor could have access to in the future. These will usually be claims which are entirely grounded in matters of taste, historical claims which no evidence can bear upon, or claims of a fundamentally moral or religious nature.
  • Very occasionally, it may be necessary for us to reject a claim because engaging with it at all would be irresponsible. This may be because we do not have the space, the expertise or the capacity to give sufficient context to a claim, which would make any judgement we could make ultimately unhelpful. We will also not engage with trolls, nor entertain harmful conspiracies, unless there is a clear journalistic case for publishing a rebuttal.

Only supervisors are authorised to reject claims, and all rejected claims are reported to senior fact checkers to confirm that the rejection was appropriate. If you think your claim has been unfairly rejected, you can ask for us to look at it again through the app.

Claim Publication Policy

  • Any claim submitted by a user which is not rejected for the above reasons receives a judgement based on the best available evidence.
  • Our claims are awarded a star rating out of five by our supervising fact-checkers. Stars are awarded according to a fact-check’s interest, rigour, style, importance, and potential impact.
  • Any claim which is awarded four or five stars is published in the fact-check library on our website. Claims must be awarded at least three stars before they are returned to users.
  • We highlight a selection of published fact-checks in our highlight feed on our app and on our website. These are four or five star claims, rotated daily, and selected for local interest (different highlight feeds are shown in different geographical areas).

If a fact-check meets none of the criteria below, it is classed as a 1-Star fact checks and returned to the researcher.

A 2-Star fact-check has a judgement which is arguably supported by at least some of the evidence presented. The evidence presented does not appear to conclusively support the judgement, or the writing is unclear or imprecise. Two-star fact-checks are returned to moderators and resubmitted.

A 3-Star fact-check has a judgement which is conclusively supported by the available evidence, has been thoroughly researched and all relevant evidence considered. Three-star fact-checks may be returned to users.

A 4-Star fact-check has all the features of a 3-star fact-check, and is also well written, interesting to a general audience and potentially impactful.

5-Star fact checks have all the features of a 4-star fact-checks, and are also clearly in the public interest, and the point at issue or the evidence we consider has not been widely covered elsewhere.

How we choose claims?

Logically aims to publish an informative and useful judgement on any claim submitted to us by a user. Rarely, we will not be able to responsibly issue a judgement on a claim, and may reject it.

What can we check?

Logically will investigate, verify and adjudicate any suitable claim submitted to us by a user.

A suitable claim:

  • Is any statement made in a public or publicly accessible forum.
  • Can be properly assessed as more or less reasonable, or simply true or false.
  • Can be adjudicated on the basis of publicly available evidence and commonly held standards of reasoning.

Logically may reject a claim for the following reasons:

  • We can only check assertions, or sentences which can be interpreted as assertions. An assertion is any sentence which aims to make somebody believe something to be true. If a submitted claim cannot be interpreted as an assertion, it will be rejected.
  • Sometimes an otherwise valid claim cannot be settled by any evidence to which we have access, nor could have access to in the future. These will usually be claims which are entirely grounded in matters of taste, historical claims which no evidence can bear upon, or claims of a fundamentally moral or religious nature.
  • Very occasionally, it may be necessary for us to reject a claim because engaging with it at all would be irresponsible. This may be because we do not have the space, the expertise or the capacity to give sufficient context to a claim, which would make any judgement we could make ultimately unhelpful. We will also not engage with trolls, nor entertain harmful conspiracies, unless there is a clear journalistic case for publishing a rebuttal.

Only supervisors are authorised to reject claims, and all rejected claims are reported to senior fact checkers to confirm that the rejection was appropriate. If you think your claim has been unfairly rejected, you can ask for us to look at it again through the app.

Claim Publication Policy

  • Any claim submitted by a user which is not rejected for the above reasons receives a judgement based on the best available evidence.
  • Our claims are awarded a star rating out of five by our supervising fact-checkers. Stars are awarded according to a fact-check’s interest, rigour, style, importance, and potential impact.
  • Any claim which is awarded four or five stars is published in the fact-check library on our website. Claims must be awarded at least three stars before they are returned to users.
  • We highlight a selection of published fact-checks in our highlight feed on our app and on our website. These are four or five star claims, rotated daily, and selected for local interest (different highlight feeds are shown in different geographical areas).

If a fact-check meets none of the criteria below, it is classed as a 1-Star fact checks and returned to the researcher.

A 2-Star fact-check has a judgement which is arguably supported by at least some of the evidence presented. The evidence presented does not appear to conclusively support the judgement, or the writing is unclear or imprecise. Two-star fact-checks are returned to moderators and resubmitted.

A 3-Star fact-check has a judgement which is conclusively supported by the available evidence, has been thoroughly researched and all relevant evidence considered. Three-star fact-checks may be returned to users.

A 4-Star fact-check has all the features of a 3-star fact-check, and is also well written, interesting to a general audience and potentially impactful.

5-Star fact checks have all the features of a 4-star fact-checks, and are also clearly in the public interest, and the point at issue or the evidence we consider has not been widely covered elsewhere.

How we conduct fact checks?

How we rate fact checks

Non-partisanship

How we choose sources

Corrections

Meet the Fact checking team