Voyons is an independently funded Canadian evidence project. Our work is not funded, commissioned, or directed by a political party, campaign, government, foreign government, advocacy organization, corporation, newsroom, or other outside organization.
Our independence is both financial and editorial. Outside interests do not choose which claims we examine, determine our verdicts, approve our conclusions, or control publication.
Funding
Voyons is independently funded.
We do not currently receive funding from political parties or campaigns, governments, foreign governments, corporations, advocacy or lobbying organizations, or the people and organizations whose claims we examine.
We do not accept payment for a particular verdict, for favourable treatment, or for deciding not to investigate a claim.
If a material outside source of funding, sponsorship, grant support, institutional support, advertising, or other financial relationship is introduced in the future, it will be disclosed when it could reasonably be relevant to assessing the project's independence. Financial support will not purchase influence over claim selection, methodology, evidence standards, or verdicts.
Editorial independence
Voyons determines what to investigate and what to conclude through its published Methodology and the available evidence.
No political party, government, advertiser, donor, advocacy organization, source, or subject of a check has editorial approval over Voyons. We do not coordinate verdicts with the people or organizations whose claims are being assessed.
The same evidentiary standards apply regardless of whether a claim originates with government, opposition, media, an advocacy organization, an online creator, a public figure, or an anonymous account. Political affiliation is neither evidence of truth nor evidence of falsity.
Canadian perspective
Voyons is Canadian, and its editorial scope is deliberately centred on claims that matter to Canada and Canadians. This includes international and cross-border narratives when they have a material Canadian connection.
Being Canadian does not mean defending Canadian governments, institutions, parties, policies, or public figures. Claims that support or criticize them are assessed under the same standard.
Privacy
Voyons does not publish personal identifying information about the people involved in the project. This is a privacy decision, not a substitute for accountability.
The project is structured so that readers do not need access to personal identities to evaluate its factual work. The relevant questions are public: What exactly is the claim? What evidence supports or contradicts it? What sources were used? What remains uncertain? Why was this verdict reached?
Those elements are documented through the published methodology, source links, confidence levels, review dates, and corrections process.
Accountability
Voyons does not ask readers to accept a conclusion on authority. A verdict should be independently understandable from the evidence presented.
For public checks, readers should be able to distinguish:
- evidence that a claim circulated from evidence establishing whether it is true;
- primary or authoritative evidence from secondary reporting;
- established facts from inference or unresolved uncertainty; and
- the factual kernel of a claim from the portion that is false, unsupported, misleading, or context-dependent.
Where stronger evidence becomes available, Voyons can revise a conclusion. Material errors are documented through the public Corrections process.
Use of AI
Voyons uses AI-assisted tools within its research workflow, including for research discovery, organization, comparison, synthesis, and drafting.
AI output is not evidence. An AI-generated assertion cannot establish a factual baseline or independently support a verdict. Public conclusions must be grounded in external sources evaluated under the published Methodology, with primary and authoritative evidence preferred wherever available.
AI assistance does not lower the publication standard. If the evidence cannot support a defensible conclusion, the appropriate result is uncertainty, an Unsupported verdict where applicable, or no public-ready check.
What readers can verify
Public Voyons checks are designed to expose the evidentiary basis of the conclusion. Where applicable, they provide:
- the specific factual claim being assessed;
- evidence showing where the claim appeared;
- direct links to the principal verification evidence;
- additional sources where multiple factual propositions must be established;
- the verdict and confidence level;
- what is genuinely true or substantiated;
- what is false, unsupported, incomplete, misleading, or dependent on context;
- the date the evidence was last reviewed; and
- material corrections.
Readers are encouraged to open the underlying sources. The source itself takes precedence over Voyons's description of it.
Any material financial, organizational, professional, political, or other relationship that could reasonably create a conflict concerning a particular published check will be disclosed with that work.
A disagreement with a verdict, the nationality of the project, or the political implications of evidence does not by itself constitute a conflict of interest. The relevant question is whether a relationship exists that could reasonably compromise—or appear to compromise—the independence of the work.
Corrections
Accuracy takes precedence over preserving an earlier conclusion. Credible new evidence can change a check's wording, confidence level, or verdict.
Material factual errors are recorded through the published Corrections process rather than silently overwritten.
External scrutiny
Voyons does not claim institutional endorsement, accreditation, or independent third-party certification that it has not received.
We welcome scrutiny of the methodology, cited evidence, and published conclusions. If Voyons undergoes a formal independent review, audit, or institutional assessment, the nature and scope of that review and any material resulting changes will be disclosed here.