With a website based off the notion of fact and information to help the voter get to the crux of the issue it is very important for us to prove ourselves correct by giving sources for facts and figures and when giving opinions (such as on economic models) citing the author. Wherever possible we will also provide a counter for this argument which is cited as well.

Sources are key for a number of reasons:

  1. Proving what we’re saying is correct
  2. Establishing a basis of trust
  3. Allowing challengers to look at what we’ve looked at and make their own conclusions

Most data on our website will be secondary data however some things, such as polling data we collect, will be primary data. For this we will release the methodology, the raw data, our conclusions etc. (Read more here).

Opinion is qualitative data while polling data is quantitative which means that when citing sources we need to be very careful who and what we’re citing. This is why we’re creating a list and series of checks that mean we allow it as a credible source. These will altered over time and soon this will be available as it’s own page however this post will always be available. These checks will ensure we’re not quoting anyone who has an opinion about something but instead an expert who has knowledge in the particular field.

These checks include but are not limited to:

  • A bachelors in relevant subject (economics, international relations etc.)
  • OR proprietary expertise in field provided by job (if related to road building – had worked for tarmac company for 5 years
  • In article has cited at least 1 source which doesn’t come from our list of not accepted sources (see below)

Unaccepted sources:

  • The Sun (print/online)
  • Breitbart
  • .blogspot addresses (WITH EXCEPTIONS BASED ON ABOVE)
  • The New Statesman (print/online)
  • The Daily Star
  • The Express
  • InfoWars
  • The Morning Star
  • Russia Today/RT/Ruptly

For updates on this page, see here.

*update (clarification) – these websites and newspapers have been excluded based on their clear bias and unbased accusations. The majority of blogspot addresses have been banned due to their unreliability due to lack of citations although this does not mean all blogspot addresses do not contain the truth.

By bias we mean that they report news in a way that we believe is incongruent with the facts and draws conclusions from evidence that doesn’t exist or those conclusions don’t match the reality. This or that they report certain news stories while excluding other ones on a regular basis due to the story not fitting their projection of news. Although there is bias expressed in newspapers such as the Guardian and the Daily Mail we believe that their very large readership and coverage of most major news stories means they have to be included although we do reserve the right to not accept stories that are based on opinion rather than fact (and the stories where the opinion has not been backed up by fact).*

*update – RT and subsidiaries added to list due to them being bankrolled by the Russian government*

No updates will be added to this post past this point but will be to the page. (28/11/16)