20 Questions
20 Questions is a fast way to pressure test a claim before you share it. Neutral wording. Repeatable steps. Anyone can use it.
Why 20 Questions matters
20 Questions exists because a lot of bad information spreads before anyone slows down long enough to ask basic questions. A claim sounds confident, the clip is short, the post is emotional, and people hit share before they know what the source actually says.
This page gives you a repeatable way to stop that cycle. It is not meant to turn every person into a full time investigator. It is meant to give regular people a practical standard they can use in politics, health claims, crime stories, viral screenshots, and everyday online arguments.
If you need the bigger method behind this page, read How We Verify and Evidence vs Rumors. If you think you already have strong proof for a major public claim, use Submit Evidence.
20 Questions quick check
If you only have thirty seconds, run these five. If you have more time, use the full list.
1. What is the exact claim
Rewrite it as one sentence. If you cannot, it is still vague.
2. What is the primary source
If the post will not link it, treat it as unverified.
3. What is missing context
Look for the full clip, full quote, full chart, or full document.
4. What would disprove it
If nothing could, it is belief not analysis.
5. What do reliable sources say
Look for official records, credible reporting, and transparent methods.
Use FABLE with 20 Questions
- False claim. What exactly is being claimed.
- Authority. Who is saying it and why trust them.
- Bias. What do they gain if you believe it.
- Logic. Does it still make sense when you slow down.
- Evidence. Where are the documents, data, or full clip.
All 20 Questions
These work across politics, health, crime, and viral news. Use them like a checklist.
- What is the claim, stated in one clear sentence.
- Who is making the claim, and what is their track record.
- What is the primary source, and can I link it.
- Is the source first hand, second hand, or anonymous.
- Is there a full document, full clip, or full dataset available.
- What key context might be missing, before or after the quoted part.
- Are names, dates, and locations specific, or suspiciously vague.
- Does the claim rely on screenshots instead of links.
- Is the media edited, cropped, or missing metadata.
- What would disprove this claim, and is that evidence available.
- Are there alternative explanations that fit the facts.
- Is the claim mixing separate events into one story.
- Is the timeline plausible when written out step by step.
- What do official records say, if records exist.
- What do multiple credible outlets report, and do they agree on basics.
- Are statistics defined properly, including time range and denominator.
- Is the claim using emotional language as a substitute for evidence.
- Who benefits if I believe this and share it.
- What is the most charitable, evidence based version of the claim.
- Given what I can verify, what is the correct confidence level.
20 Questions outcome labels
Verified
Primary evidence is linked and holds up.
Unverified
Not enough evidence to conclude either way.
False or misleading
Key details do not match the record.
Sources for the curious: official records, full documents, full interviews, inspector general reports, court dockets, and source evaluation guidance from Google Search help, AP, and Reuters.