About
Facts matter. So does knowing where they come from.
During major conflicts and geopolitical crises, social media accounts become primary news sources for millions of people. Journalists cite them in live blogs. Researchers quote them in reports. Policymakers read them. The public shares them.
Most of that happens without any systematic understanding of who runs these accounts, how accurate they actually are, or what positions they hold. Some of the most widely followed accounts in this space have significant documented accuracy problems. Others hold clear political positions that colour everything they post — something their audiences may not be aware of.
OSIRIS exists to change that. We rate social media accounts covering conflicts and geopolitical events against three things: factual accuracy, source transparency, and editorial positioning. The scores are published openly. The methodology is published openly. There is no advertising and no right of reply.
How ratings work
Each account is assessed against a reviewed sample of posts. Posts are classified and accuracy-rated individually. The account's overall Content Integrity Score (CIS) — a letter grade from A to F — reflects a weighted average across that sample, with more recent posts weighted more heavily than older ones.
Factual accuracy and editorial positioning are scored separately. An account can hold a clear, consistent political stance and still score highly for factual accuracy. We treat those as distinct things because conflating them produces misleading results and because audiences deserve to know both.
Sample size is shown on every scorecard. A score based on 10 posts is less reliable than one based on 60. As accounts are re-reviewed over time, the sample grows, the score updates, and the scorecard reflects how thoroughly an account has been assessed.
Posts that cannot yet be verified — where sourcing is unclear, context is missing, or events are still developing — are marked as pending and excluded from the weighted average. They do not count against an account until resolved.
Independence
OSIRIS does not accept advertising. Accounts are not notified when they are being rated, and there is no right of reply once a rating is published. Neither advertisers nor rated accounts can pay to influence scores. The project operates entirely separately from any other work by the people involved in it.
The project has no financial relationship with any government, military organisation, platform, or media outlet. Ratings are not offered for sale and are not commissioned. The methodology is public specifically so that anyone can assess the scoring process for themselves.
Who it is for
OSIRIS is for anyone who needs to make informed decisions about which social media accounts to trust when covering or following conflicts. That includes journalists and editors who cite OSINT accounts in news coverage, researchers who use them as sources, media organisations assessing their own sourcing practices, and anyone who wants to understand the information they are consuming.
What we are not
We are not a fact-checking organisation in the conventional sense. We do not investigate individual claims in isolation. We rate accounts based on patterns across a sample of posts, not single instances. An account that gets one thing wrong is not automatically rated poorly. An account that consistently misrepresents events, relies on unverifiable media, or presents speculation as established fact will reflect that in its score.
We are also not a political project. Our concern is accuracy and transparency, not which side of a conflict an account supports.