This page explains how Wochenanalyse.de gathers, verifies and presents the news you read. It is designed to give you a clear, concrete understanding of our sourcing standards and how you can hold us accountable. We invite you to use the sections below to see exactly what we rely on and to learn the straightforward process for challenging anything we publish.
What sources do we rely on day to day?
We rely on primary sources, official documents, named experts and direct observation – never on unverified rumours or anonymous claims. Every article at Wochenanalyse.de begins with material we can trace back to an identifiable origin.
Our reporters work directly with original government press releases, parliamentary records, court rulings, company filings and public statistics from agencies such as Statistikmyndigheten (SCB) and the Swedish National Audit Office. We conduct our own interviews with named sources whenever possible; when anonymity is granted for legitimate safety or whistleblower reasons, the editor and fact-checker review the case before publication. We also subscribe to accredited wire services including TT Nyhetsbyrån and Reuters, but we treat their copy as a starting point and verify each claim against independent sources.
Every piece of reporting is reviewed by a subject editor and then by our fact-checking team led by Lea Schreiber (ansvarig för faktagranskning). She and her colleagues cross‑reference quotes, figures and contextual claims against original documents or authoritative databases. AI‑assisted tools may be used for research, translation or formatting, but no AI ever makes a sourcing decision or fabricates a quote, interview or byline. Every published article carries the name of the writer and the editor who approved it. For a deeper look at our verification process, see our fact‑checking policy and editorial policy.
How to challenge our reporting
If you believe we have made a factual error, omitted a relevant detail or misrepresented a source, you can request a correction or submit a formal complaint – and we will investigate promptly and transparently. Our process is designed to be straightforward and free of bureaucratic hurdles.
Send any correction request or factual challenge to corrections@wochenanalyse.de, or use the general contact form at /about-us/contact/. Please include the article URL, a clear description of the alleged error and, if possible, supporting evidence (a document, screenshot or link). The newsroom acknowledges every submission within two working days. The relevant editor and the fact‑checking team review the claim; if an error is confirmed, we publish a correction notice pinned to the top of the article and update the text. Significant corrections are also noted in our weekly newsletter. For serious or unresolved grievances, you can escalate to our complaints procedure, which is laid out in full at /complaints-procedure/. Our chief editor, Peter Weber (chefredaktör), personally oversees all correction decisions and can be reached at anders.lindqvist@wochenanalyse.de or +46 8 525 030 61.
We treat every challenge as an opportunity to improve. If we decide not to issue a correction, we explain our reasoning in writing. We also maintain a publicly accessible log of all corrections and clarifications, updated monthly, as part of our corrections policy.
How this works in practice
Our process is not abstract – here is a concrete example. In a recent article about changes to Sweden’s housing benefit rules, a reporter obtained the official government proposal (proposition 2024/25:83) from the Riksdag website. She then interviewed two named economists at Konsumentverket and one at the Riksdagens utredningstjänst, recording the calls with their consent. The draft was reviewed by our politics editor, who flagged a percentile figure that seemed inconsistent with SCB data. The fact‑checker pulled the original SCB table, confirmed a transcription error, and the reporter corrected the number before publication. AI‑assisted translation was used to produce an English summary of the proposition, but the human translator compared the output against the original Swedish text. No quotes or sources were generated by software. The final article states clearly which sources were used and provides direct links to the underlying documents where possible. This sequence – primary source, verified interview, independent cross‑check, human oversight – is our standard workflow for every story.
Ownership and funding
Wochenanalyse.de is owned and operated by Wochenanalys Media Ltd., a private company registered in Gibraltar (company number C 92009, Malta Business Registry). The registered office is Office 9, Business Centre, Valletta, 0000. Our editorial decisions are made independently of our owners and commercial partners. We fund our journalism through display advertising, affiliate links, commercial partnerships, sponsored content, newsletter sponsorships and content licensing. All sponsored or commercial material is clearly labelled, and affiliate links are disclosed. Commercial relationships never determine editorial conclusions. For full details, see our ownership and funding statement and advertising and affiliate disclosure.
In short
We use only traceable, verifiable sources and subject every article to human editorial judgment and independent fact‑checking. If you spot a mistake, we have a clear, responsive process to correct it – and we are committed to explaining our decisions openly. That is the foundation of trustworthy Swedish journalism at Wochenanalyse.de.