Facts are falsifiable claims (e.g. there was a mass shooting in Sweden last night), not opinions where there's no objective notion of correctness. One casualty of the current political environment is that people forget what they were taught in school about the difference between facts and opinions.
For example, the New Year's assaults in Cologne that the German government allegedly attempted to cover up.[1] That failed, but such efforts do sometimes succeed.
Interesting that the "facts" in your comment have now changed since you originally posted. Is it a "terror attack" or a "mass shooting" in Sweden that you are claiming Trump referenced?
Many news organizations reported that Trump mentioned a terrorist attack in Sweden the night before. The transcript shows he was ambiguous on what happened the night before.
So in this case would Google mark these news organizations, most of them reputable as far as it's possible to be today, as fact checks even though they apparently hadn't bothered to read the full transcript?
No, Fact Checking articles will be pushed up. People here are reading this wrongly. The articles aren't marked as checked, but as themselves being fact checks (of the overall story).
If that's true its terribly poor labeling. I guarantee the majority of folks glancing at an article and seeing that tag will interpret it as the article being vetted not an article doing the vetting.
If that's what they're doing their must be a reference article the "fact checking" article is pointing to. So I'd much rather have tags on the reference article pointing to the "fact checking" articles and tags on the "fact checking" articles pointing back to the reference article.
If that's what they're doing their must be a reference article the "fact checking" article is pointing to.
Why? Facts about a particular story are often reproduced by many sites. It's reasonable to run a check on those facts without specifically targeting a site. Snopes (which they use as an example) does this regularly.
