:strip_icc():strip_exif()/u/285051/teaglass_tweakers.jpg?f=community)
Verantwoording Broncontrole
Dit document dient als verantwoording voor de opzet van [UKR] Broncontrole criteriaDit document dient meer als referentie voor welke bronnen zijn gebruikt en wat uit deze bronnen is belicht. Het dient meer als werkdocument om tot [UKR] Broncontrole criteria te komen dan als leesvoer voor derden. Hopelijk maakt het hoe tot [UKR] Broncontrole criteria is gekomen verifieerbaar.
Gebruikte internetbronnen
- https://www.webdetective.nl/index.php/checklist - broken
- https://www.scribbr.com/w...sources/credible-sources/
- https://www.una.edu/writi.../Source%20Credibility.pdf
- https://hbl.gcc.libguides.com/ld.php?content_id=14906366
- https://guides.lib.byu.edu/c.php?g=216340&p=1428399
- https://mason.gmu.edu/~montecin/web-eval-sites.htm
- https://researchguides.li...alysis/evaluating-sources
- https://library.weber.edu...ook/source_evaluation.pdf
- https://credibility.stanford.edu/guidelines/index.html
- https://learning.hccs.edu...iller/fact-checking-sites
- https://data.europa.eu/en.../open-source-intelligence
Gebruikte informatie
Het werk in dit document overspant inmiddels een periode van meer dan twee jaar. Bij de eerste bron kreeg ik meteen een digital signage probleem, wat de site nu als niet betrouwbaar kwalificeert. For the record hieronder de lijst.https://www.webdetective.nl/index.php/checklist
Dit is de site met het digital signage probleem. Nu voert de bron terug op de Overijsselse bibliotheken, die blijkbaar hun sites beter moeten onderhouden. In https://www.slideshare.ne...tive-handleiding/22554338 was ook nog een handleiding voor docenten te vinden van dezelfde bron. Toch nog wat referentie kader. Wat ik er toentertijd aan informatie heb onttrokken is het volgende:• Is het duidelijk wie de maker, afzender of uitgever van de site is?
• Is het duidelijk wat het doel van de site is?
• Is reclame maken het doel van de site?
• Bevat de site commerciële advertenties?
- ja, als onderdeel van de informatie
- ja, maar deze zijn duidelijk gescheiden van de informatie
- nee
• Is de aangeboden informatie volledig genoeg voor jouw doel?
• De maker van de site is bereikbaar via:
- alleen een e-mailadres
- een e-mailadres en telefoonnummer
- uitgebreide adresgegevens en een e-mailadres en telefoonnummer
- de maker is niet bereikbaar
• Geeft de website duidelijk aan dat de informatie door een deskundige is geschreven?
• Worden verwijzingen (links) gegeven naar andere sites voor informatie over de makers?
• Is er een literatuuropgave of een link naar andere bronnen om de informatie te controleren?
• Is er een duidelijke en herkenbare 'menu' structuur?
• Kun je uit de URL afleiden waar je bent binnen de site?
• De informatie wordt ondersteund met:
- illustraties en/of foto's
- grafieken
- geluids- of videobestanden
- niks
- de datum van de laatste update (herziening)
- de datum waarop de site werd gemaakt en/of gepubliceerd
- een datum bij grafieken, kaarten, illustraties enz.
- geen datum
• De site bevat geen (spel)fouten en is goed onderhouden (alle links werken).
• Is de site "klaar" (en niet "under construction") ?
https://www.scribbr.com/w...sources/credible-sources/
De site shares the CRAAP test (https://www.scribbr.com/working-with-sources/craap-test/). The CRAAP test is a catchy acronym that will help you evaluate the credibility of a source you are thinking about using. California State University developed it in 2004 to help students remember best practices for evaluating content.The 5 components of the CRAAP test
- Currency: Is the source up-to-date?
- Relevance: Is the source relevant to your research?
- Authority: Where is the source published? Who is the author? Are they considered reputable and trustworthy in their field?
- Accuracy: Is the source supported by evidence? Are the claims cited correctly?
- Purpose: What was the motive behind publishing this source?
- Encyclopedias
- Textbooks
- Websites with .edu or .org domains
- News sources with first-hand reporting
- Research-oriented magazines like ScienceMag or Nature Weekly.
- ScienceMag https://www.sciencemag.org/
- Nature Weekly https://www.nature.com/
https://www.una.edu/writi.../Source%20Credibility.pdf
DepthWhat is the depth of coverage of the information? A source that is completely reliable may still only give a light overview of the important information. In many cases, you will need to have more than a simple overview of information in order to connect the data to your topic.
Objectivity
Is the information you are using biased in any way? If so, does the bias affect the conclusions of the research? Does the information come from a source that will profit from a particular point of view? If so, the information may not be reliable. Does the source use proper citation?
Currency
How up-to-date is the information? When was it written? Many assignments, especially in the sciences, require research from the past five or ten years.
Authority
Who is the author? Does the author have a degree in the field? Is the author affiliated with an unbiased reputable organization? Note that scholarly articles tend to have multiple authors.
Purpose
What is the purpose of the source? Is it to entertain, to change public opinion, to present research, or to teach? Who is the intended audience? Reliable research articles are usually very specific in nature and relate to a very specific field.
https://hbl.gcc.libguides.com/ld.php?content_id=14906366
Purpose Is the resource designed to inform? Persuade? What is the author’s main objective?- Looking at the content of the resource, is the primary goal to inform the reader?
- Is the resource unbiased on the issue (It examines more than one point of view)?
- Did the author include a bibliography or list of references for the sources they consulted?
- If yes, are the sources listed from other credible sources (i.e. not Wikipedia articles, etc.)?
- Based on the date published and/or revised, is the information current for your topic suitable?
- Does the resource seem to be designed for use by students, faculty, and/or other experts?
- Does the information provided by this resource address and/or answer your research topic?
- Are the author’s credentials listed (e.g. degrees & titles held, organizational affiliations)?
- Based on their credentials, is the author qualified to write on this topic?
- If the author is an organization, is it a well-known expert on this topic?
https://guides.lib.byu.edu/c.php?g=216340&p=1428399
Evaluating Your Sources
In your search for information, you eventually face the challenge of evaluating the resources you have located and selecting those you judge to be most appropriate for your needs. Examine each information source you locate and assess sources using the following criteria:Timeliness
Your resources need to be recent enough for your topic. If your paper is on a topic like cancer research, you would want the most recent information, but a topic such as World War II could use information written in a broader time range.
Authority
Does the information come from an author or organization that has authority to speak on your topic? Has the information been peer-reviewed? (You can use Ulrichsweb to determine if a journal is peer-reviewed). Do they cite their credentials? Be sure there is sufficient documentation to help you determine whether the publication is reliable including footnotes, bibliographies, credits, or quotations.
Link: Ulrichsweb = http://dbs.lib.byu.edu/ulrichsweb
Evaluating Websites
Websites create an interesting challenge in evaluating credibility and usefulness because no two websites are created the same way. The TAARP method described above can be used, but there are additional things you want to consider when looking at a website:The look and feel of the website
Reliable websites usually have a more professional look and feel than personal Web sites.
The URL of your results
The .com, .edu, .gov, .net, and .org all actually mean something and can help you to evaluate the website!
- Informational Resources are those which present factual information. These are usually sponsored by educational institutions or governmental agencies. (These resources often include .edu or .gov.)
- Advocacy Resources are those sponsored by an organization that is trying to sell ideas or influence public opinion. (These resources may include .org within the URL.)
- Business or Marketing Resources are those sponsored by a commercial entity that is trying to sell products. These pages are often very biased, but can provide useful information. (You will usually find .com within the URL of these resources.)
- News Resources are those which provide extremely current information on hot topics. Most of the time news sources are not as credible as academic journals, and newspapers range in credibility from paper to paper. (The URL will usually include .com.)
- Personal Web Pages/Resources are sites such as social media sites: blogs, Twitter pages, Facebook, etc. These sources can be helpful to determine what people are saying on a topic and what discussions are taking place. Exercise great caution if trying to incorporate these sources directly into an academic paper. Very rarely, if ever, will they hold any weight in the scholarly community.
Advertisements can indicate that the information may be less reliable.
Check the links on the page
Broken or incorrect links can mean that no one is taking care of the site and that other information on it may be out-of-date or unreliable.
Check when the page was last updated
Dates when pages were last updated are valuable clues to its currency and accuracy.
Audience
Who are the intended readers and what is the publication's purpose? There is a difference between a magazine written for the general public and a journal written for professors and experts in the field.
Relevance
Does this article relate to your topic? What connection can be made between the information that is presented and your thesis? An easy way to check for relevance is by reviewing the Abstract or Summary of the article before downloading the entire article.
Perspective
Biased sources can be helpful in creating and developing an argument, but make sure you find sources to help you understand the other side as well. Extremely biased sources will often misrepresent information and that can be ineffective to use in your paper.
https://mason.gmu.edu/~montecin/web-eval-sites.htm
Some Common Domain Names- .edu - education sites
- .gov - government sites
- .org - organization sites
- .com - commercial sites
- .net - network infrastructures
The Internet addresses (Domain Names), which end in such extensions as those above, correlate to the server which Is the "home base" for that Internet address. It gets confusing when dealing with personal Web pages. Independent providers, such as AOL, are not responsible for the content of individual's Web pages, anymore than a university is responsible for the Web pages of students (Though, in extreme cases, you can be cut off if your content does not fit certain standards). If a person named "Doe" had a Web page on America Online, the address might be http://www.erols.com/doe/. Even though the site is commercial (AOL), Mr./Ms. Doe has bought Web space for a personal Web page. Some universities, like GMU, provide Web space to faculty and student, so personal Web pages can reside on an education site.
https://researchguides.li...alysis/evaluating-sources
Evaluating Information Sources
As a student, you will be gathering information from a variety of types of sources for your research projects including books, newspaper articles, magazine articles, specialized databases, and websites. As you examine each source, it is important to evaluate each source to determine the quality of the information provided within it. Common evaluation criteria include: purpose and intended audience, authority and credibility, accuracy and reliability, currency and timeliness, and objectivity or bias. Each of these criteria will be explained in more detail below.Purpose and intended audience
What is the purpose of the source? For example:
- To provide information (e.g., newspaper articles)
- To persuade or advocate (e.g., editorials or opinion pieces)
- To entertain (e.g., a viral video)
- To sell a product or service (e.g., advertising or marketing materials on a company website)
- Scholars and academic researchers with specialized knowledge
- The general public (without specialized knowledge)
- Students in high school, college or university (e.g., textbooks for students learning a new subject).
Who is the author?
- Is it a person?
- Is it an organization such as a government agency, nonprofit organization, or a corporation?
- What is the author's occupation, experience, or educational background?
- Does the author have any subject matter expertise?
- Is the author affiliated with an organization such as a university, government agency, nonprofit organization, or a corporation?
- For books, is it a university press or a commercial publisher? These types of publishers use editors in order to ensure a quality publication.
- For journals or magazines, can you tell if it is popular or scholarly in nature? See: Peer-reviewed, popular magazine, or journal?
- For websites, is it an organizational website, or a personal blog?
Is the information well researched?
- Are there references (e.g., citations, footnotes, or a bibliography) to sources that will provide evidence for the claims made?
- If the source includes facts or statistical data, can this information be verified in another source?
- If the data was gathered using original research (such as polling or surveys), what was the method of data collection? Has the author disclosed the validity or reliability of the data?
When was the information published?
- For books and articles - you should be able to easily verify the publication date.
- For websites, try to determine the date the web page was created or updated
Objectivity or bias
Does the source contain opinions or facts?
Is the information presented in the source objective (unbiased) or subjective (biased)?
Does the information promote a political, religious, or social agenda?
Is advertising content (usually found in business magazines or newspapers) clearly labelled?
In Summary
Does the source provide you with high-quality information? Is the information useful in answering your questions and meeting your information need?
Evaluating Internet Sources With RADAR
- Relevance - How is this information relevant to your assignment?
- Authority - Who is the author? What makes this person or organization an authoritative source?
- Date - When was this information published and is the publication date important to you?
- Accuracy - Where are they getting their information from? Does it have citations and references? Are they using reputable sources or explaining how they gathered their data?
- Reason for writing - Why did the author publish this information?
https://library.weber.edu...ook/source_evaluation.pdf
RELEVANCE**Technically, relevance is NOT an evaluation criterion. However, this is a very important category, because it is the first thing you need to address: If it’s not relevant, don’t use it. To assess relevancy, ask yourself the following questions:
- Is the information related to your topic? If you are writing a paper on ballet, an article on ballroom
- dancing won’t be useful.
- Is there enough information? With very rare exceptions (e.g., statistics or specific facts), you need at least 2-3 paragraphs of information for the source to be useful.
- How will you use the information? Will you use it to support your research question? As an
- example?
- Is it the right kind of information? If you are required to use scholarly articles, then articles from magazines and newspapers won’t work, and neither will books.
ACCURACY/CREDIBILITY OF CONTENT
- Have you found similar information somewhere else? If you’ve found similar information in a
- different scholarly source, it’s probably accurate.
- Does the author provide evidence and examples to support his/her information? For
- example, if an author says that people prefer a certain brand of detergent, does he/she provide information from studies and research on the topic?
- Is the author an expert on the subject? What is the source of his/her expertise? Is it education or
- experience? What is his/her background?
- Has the author published anything else on this topic? If so, is it scholarly? If it’s popular, is it
- from a respected magazine such as Archaeology or The Economist?
- Is the author affiliated with a reputable university or organization? If so, what is his/her
- position and what is the name of the university or organization?
- Is there any information about the author/webmaster, such as a bio-sketch?
Source refers to the journal or magazine where you found your article, the book where you found your chapter, or the website where you found your page.
- Is the information in that source peer reviewed or edited? Edited means at least one other person looked at the information and okayed it. Peer reviewed means 2-3 specialists in the field have approved the publication. Editing is mostly found in popular sources. Peer reviewed (or refereed) is found in scholarly sources. Both indicate the source should be credible.
- Is there a list of references or works cited? What is the quality of these references? Are the cited sources scholarly, credible, and relevant? Take a look at the list of references to see what types of sources are cited - books, articles frommagazines and newspapers, websites, articles from scholarly journals, government documents, etc.
- If there are links to other websites or Web pages, do the links work? Do they link to reliable sources? Are the links relevant and supportive? Are they evaluated or annotated?
When we talk about “currency”, we are not talking about money. We are talking about how new the information is. Sometimes this matters, and other times it doesn’t.
- Do you need current information? If you’re writing about the latest treatments for Type I diabetics, your sources need to be pretty current- probably within the past couple of years. If you are writing about the pyramids in Egypt, older material may be acceptable. In general, if you are writing about topics that are changing rapidly, like technology or medicine, you probably need more current information. If you’re writing about history, it might not matter as much. However, always ask your professor if he or she has specific requirements for the assignment.
- Can you tell when the information was created/published or revised? This can be difficult on the Web. A website or Web page without a date is often not a good source.
Most information is biased to some degree. The trick is to be aware of the bias and work with it.
- What is the intent or purpose of the source? Is it to entertain, voice and opinion, educate or inform, persuade, or sell you a product? Is there a political, commercial, personal, or social agenda? Using sources that have an agenda is ok, 5 as long as you recognize it. For example, if you are writing a paper on logging in the Pacific Northwest, you might use information from the Sierra Club and from the Pacific Lumber Company. Both will have a different view on this issue, and including both of them will balance your paper.
- Does the information clearly support only one side of an issue? Again, the Sierra Club will have a different view on logging than Pacific Lumber Company.
- Is the author trying to persuade you to come over to his/her view? A website claiming the Beatles are the best band ever is not a good source of information on bands in the Sixties.
- Does the information try to show both sides? How balanced is the presentation on opposing perspectives? Do they fairly present both sides of the story, or do they support one side over the other? Information that tries to show both sides is often a better, but be careful. The author is still picking and choosing his/her information. There can be bias even when the author is trying to be objective.
- What is the tone of language used (angry, sarcastic, balanced, personal opinion, educated)? This can give you a hint as to whether or not there is bias present.
https://credibility.stanford.edu/guidelines/index.html
- Make it easy to verify the accuracy of the information on your site.
You can build web site credibility by providing third-party support (citations, references, source material) for information you present, especially if you link to this evidence. Even if people don't follow these links, you've shown confidence in your material. - Show that there's a real organization behind your site.
Showing that your web site is for a legitimate organization will boost the site's credibility. The easiest way to do this is by listing a physical address. Other features can also help, such as posting a photo of your offices or listing a membership with the chamber of commerce. - Highlight the expertise in your organization and in the content and services you provide.
Do you have experts on your team? Are your contributors or service providers authorities? Be sure to give their credentials. Are you affiliated with a respected organization? Make that clear. Conversely, don't link to outside sites that are not credible. Your site becomes less credible by association. - Show that honest and trustworthy people stand behind your site.
The first part of this guideline is to show there are real people behind the site and in the organization. Next, find a way to convey their trustworthiness through images or text. For example, some sites post employee bios that tell about family or hobbies. - Make it easy to contact you.
A simple way to boost your site's credibility is by making your contact information clear: phone number, physical address, and email address. - Design your site so it looks professional (or is appropriate for your purpose).
We find that people quickly evaluate a site by visual design alone. When designing your site, pay attention to layout, typography, images, consistency issues, and more. Of course, not all sites gain credibility by looking like IBM.com. The visual design should match the site's purpose. - Make your site easy to use -- and useful.
We're squeezing two guidelines into one here. Our research shows that sites win credibility points by being both easy to use and useful. Some site operators forget about users when they cater to their own company's ego or try to show the dazzling things they can do with web technology. - Update your site's content often (at least show it's been reviewed recently).
People assign more credibility to sites that show they have been recently updated or reviewed. - Use restraint with any promotional content (e.g., ads, offers).
If possible, avoid having ads on your site. If you must have ads, clearly distinguish the sponsored content from your own. Avoid pop-up ads, unless you don't mind annoying users and losing credibility. As for writing style, try to be clear, direct, and sincere. - Avoid errors of all types, no matter how small they seem.
Typographical errors and broken links hurt a site's credibility more than most people imagine. It's also important to keep your site up and running.
https://learning.hccs.edu...iller/fact-checking-sites
Cynicism vs. Skepticism
There is no utility in cynicism-- taking the destructive attitude that all politicians, journalists, and opinion leaders are biased, corrupt, liars, etc. Often, cynics display this attitude in a pretentious attempt to show they are intellectually superior and "can't be fooled by all the liars." This is an excuse not to think... not to be responsible for research and reasoning so that one can distinguish good from bad. Actually, most of these politicians, journalists, and opinion leaders sincerely believe they are trying to do good. But sometimes speakers and writers are pushed by the pressure of campaigns, competition, party loyalty, and policy-making to exaggerate or selectively show the best side of their argument. Therefore, when considering their claims, be skeptical-- be curious, apply a healthy dose of questioning, withhold immediate judgement until you can carefully evaluate, and be intellectually humble and open-minded. Ask questions such as these:Important Skeptical Questions
- Who or what is the source and what motivations and previous record of credibility does this source have? Is it humor, a parody, or political satire? Does the source have a website, a location, a staff list, etc.? If a news organization's or an interest group's URL is given, Google that organization to verify the URL is real. Often the URL looks similar to a professional site but has a different domain name (the first part of the URL after the protocol like "https").
- Who is the author? Search to see the author's background, associations, and possible criticisms. Authors are sometimes missing altogether... or invented, misquoted, or taken out of context--so investigate.
- Are there numerous grammatical mistakes-- a sure sign of unprofessional and unedited writing?
- If online, look at the URL extension (the three letters at the end of the site's root address). Endings like .gov (official governmental), .edu (higher education institution), .org (non-profit institution), .mil (U.S. military) are more reliable sources-- although (1) others sometimes get these extensions, and (2) official sites may have their own mistakes or biases as well, although not as commonly or profoundly.
- What kind of links are there on webpages? Are there links to other known reputable sources? Is it heavy with advertising, and if so, what kind of advertising--mainstream commercial or conspiracy stories and suspicious sites?
- What is the full story? Read the entire claim. It may reveal suspicious inconsistencies or unprofessional methods. Authors know that many will read only the headline and not bother with investigating further. Are the details well-documented? Do allegations have specific facts that can be verified? Cross-check their claims using other known reputable sites.
- Are the terms used qualified, vague, interpretable, or unclear? Are the words emotionally loaded with good or bad tacit assumptions?
- Are statistics being used selectively, vaguely, or manipulatively? Is the information selective or comprehensive? Is it random anecdotal hearsay or wide in scope?
- What is the context, time, circumstances, etc. at the time the comments or decisions were made? Look for dates too-- often false stories are recycled and distorted. Some stories circle the globe for years with different names, places, and events.
- Are reputable sites referenced with quotes and data? Go to the organization's official site and use their search engine to verify.
- Are professional pollsters (e.g. Pew Research Center, Gallup, Rasmussen, Monmouth, CBS/New York Times, ABC/Washington Post, Reuters) cited? Go to their sites to make sure they are being accurately reported or to compare them against unknown pollsters.
- Are the photographs genuine and not altered (Photoshopped)? Examine shading, colors, and consistency. Sometimes backgrounds reveal hoaxes because known structures and landmarks indicate locations. Sometimes famous people look younger (or still alive!) or there is a time stamp on the photo. You can also upload the image into Google images to see other (possibly earlier or original) copies of it on the Internet or use other free sites.
- Does this information recognize alternative possible explanations, causes, and scenarios? Is this claim overly bold and assumptive or is there a degree of intellectual humility and recognition that there are other factors to consider?
- Finally, often fake news reports are fantastical, outrageous, bizarre, highly unexpected, or highly unlikely. Disastrous perils and tragic outcomes are predicted, sometimes along with simplistic solutions. This prompts two questions: Why are reputable news organizations, who are highly competitive with one another, not reporting the story? And if it really is credible wouldn't those harmed by the story be issuing denials or excuses or rebuttals?
Political Fact-Checking Sites
- http://www.factcheck.org/
- https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/
- http://www.politifact.com/
- https://ballotpedia.org/Verbatim
- http://www.politico.com/ (not specifically a fact-checker site, but often does fact-checking)
- https://mediabiasfactcheck.com
Fact-Checking Diagnostic Sites That Investigate Hoaxes and Fake Bots
- https://hoaxy.iuni.iu.edu/
(tracks and shows how fake news spreads; watch the brief tutorial first) - https://botometer.iuni.iu.edu/#!
(shows how likely a Twitter account is to be a robot rather than a human, designed to spread a story and make it popular)
General Fact-Checking Sites
- http://www.snopes.com/ (Snopes is probably the most respected general-purpose site.)
- https://www.truthorfiction.com/
- http://urbanlegends.about.com/
- http://www.hoax-slayer.com/
- http://www.straightdope.com/
https://data.europa.eu/en.../open-source-intelligence
Open sources that feed into OSINT can be divided up into six categories of information flow:- Public media – print newspaper, magazines, and television.
- Internet – online publications and blogs, discussion groups such as forums, and social media websites, such as YouTube, Twitter and Instagram.
- Public government data – public government reports, budgets, press conferences, hearings, and speeches.
- Professional and academic publications – journals, conferences, academic papers, and theses.
- Commercial data – commercial imagery, business and financial assessments, and databases.
- Grey literature – technical reports, patents, business documents, unpublished works, and newsletters.
This is an important lesson—collecting vast quantities of data without reorganising and qualifying it can reduce its value. Open-data platforms are not necessarily conduits through which data flows freely, they also play a valuable role as arbitrators of quality. Ultimately, developers and users need to be able to easily access the data, but also trust that the information they are using can be relied upon to provide accurate results for the intended purpose.
Bellingcat, an independent international collective of researchers, investigators and citizen journalists, has been a particularly heavy user of the kind of open data that OSINT provides. In one piece of reporting, Bellingcat attempted to identify key suspects in the downing of Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 over Eastern Ukraine in 2014. Based on images taken from social media and phone intercepts that the Ukrainian Security Service made available on YouTube, Bellingcat published a report outlining evidence that a Buk Missile launcher downed the airline. They also published the names of the individuals that they believed responsible. Other examples of their work include exposing illegal shipping precursors of the nerve agent Sarin to Syria by Belgian companies, revealing the use of drones by non-state actors in Syria and Iraq, and most recently mapping incidents of civilian harm in Ukraine.
Open source intelligence relies heavily on ordinary, unpaid citizens in much the same way that open source software relies on ordinary, unpaid developers. Without this army of unpaid OSINT supporters, who collect and check the quality of raw data, OSINT would lack its authority and quality. The decentralised and crowd-sourced nature of OSINT erodes the ability of centralised authorities—whether government or corporate—to hide certain truths. This is not to say that crowd-sourced judgements always lead to sound analysis. As with any data source, information should be corroborated and continually questioned. This, however, makes open data portals all the more important in providing a governance structure and framework that allows OSINT to thrive.
https://www.bellingcat.com/
Bellingcat does not solicit or accept funding and contributions directly from any national government. Bellingcat can solicit or accept contributions from international or intergovernmental institutions such as the European Commission or the United Nations. Bellingcat can accept or solicit funding that is distributed by a private foundation that accepts government funds, so long as it is independent from any national government. We will not allow any funding relationship to constrain us from criticising any bodies that provide funds, exposing any wrongdoing in which said bodies may be involved or impact our editorial independence.You can review our full fundraising policy: https://www.bellingcat.co...at-Fundraising-Policy.pdf.
https://gijn.org/
Global Investigative Journalism Network.No specifc information used from this source
[ Voor 224% gewijzigd door teacup op 28-10-2024 20:37 ]
Wil je een EU leger? Teken dan de petitie Protect us with a European ARMY (Volt EU)
Dit topic is gesloten.