3 ms·

It's a bit disingenuous to assume that they are ignoring the problem of adversarial actors. Jimmy Wales, through his experience with Wikipedia, is probably mor

It's a bit disingenuous to assume that they are ignoring the problem of adversarial actors. Jimmy Wales, through his experience with Wikipedia, is probably more aware of these issues – and potential solutions – than pretty much anyone else on this planet. Also, your arguments could equally be used to argue that something like Wikipedia cannot work but we know that this is not the case. Is this going to be easy? No. Is it worth trying? Most definitely.

intended 10y ago
But thats the key difference - wikipedia is not the news, and the news is not an encyclopedia. This is essentially the same sales pitch that gave us bloggers as journalists, which we already know did not create an alternative to the system (well depending on your perspective I guess) There's many things worth trying, but as I said - this set up solves a problem, just not the problem at the heart of their mission statement
- tmalsburg2 10y ago
  I think Wales recognized the key difference between Wikipedia and news and that's precisely why he's is proposing a new format that is distinctly different from Wikipedia's format and from blogs. Their mission statement is the following: > We want to make sure that you read fact-based articles that have a > real impact in both local and global events. And that stories can be > easily verified and improved. You earlier said that adversaries will just repeat falsehoods until they are perceived as being true but even endless repetition will not make sources and evidence magically appear. Could you please elaborate on why you think they will fail to achieve their goals?
  - intended 10y ago
    1) I have provided examples of how adversaries can manipulate the naive implementation described above. Countering one example shouldn't be seen as countering the class. 2) to answer your specific question - self referential information loops already exist. News paper makes a claim, claim is put onto Wikipedia. That claim is repeated by other websites, which in then use wikipedia as the source. How will wiki tribune solve this? By doing longform research? Going out in the field and finding the facts? That's not what this setup is good for. It assumes that fact checkers can check facts, at the speed of the current news cycle. Fact is that this verification can't be done fast enough and broad enough to cover ground to be useful, unless it gets a multi billion dollar investment.
    - vinceguidry 10y ago
      It doesn't have to solve it perfectly and in every case. But by building a human apparatus it can apply human ingenuity at scale to tackle the problem. Wikipedia mainly fails around the margins. Yes, initially bad actors can game the system. But success brings more attention and eventually the problems are fixed.
      - intended 10y ago
        But the margins are the issue here, and this is all at the frequency of the news cycle. Take a look at the objections put together at the top of the comment tree on this page. They point out exactly why this won't work. Do consider that this has to happen at the speed of the news cycle! This means that volunteers and journos have to report fast enough to be relevant or helpful. Thats a lot less time for volunteers to fact check or respond.
        vinceguidry 10y ago
        The goal does not have to be to ascertain and adjudicate truth. It only has to detect attempts to deceive. Right now we don't have a good way of doing that other than everybody building up their own internal filter. Perfection is the enemy of the good.
- dahauns 10y ago
  > But thats the key difference - wikipedia is not the news, and the news is not an encyclopedia. To go one step further: Wherever Wikipedia actually does approach the vicinity of "news" (i.e. articles about current events/politics/persons etc.), it has been shown time and again to be prone to manipulation just like your scenarios for wikitribune, and that it actually doesn't work very well in this area.

intended 10y ago

But thats the key difference - wikipedia is not the news, and the news is not an encyclopedia. This is essentially the same sales pitch that gave us bloggers as journalists, which we already know did not create an alternative to the system (well depending on your perspective I guess) There's many things worth trying, but as I said - this set up solves a problem, just not the problem at the heart of their mission statement

tmalsburg2 10y ago
I think Wales recognized the key difference between Wikipedia and news and that's precisely why he's is proposing a new format that is distinctly different from Wikipedia's format and from blogs. Their mission statement is the following: > We want to make sure that you read fact-based articles that have a > real impact in both local and global events. And that stories can be > easily verified and improved. You earlier said that adversaries will just repeat falsehoods until they are perceived as being true but even endless repetition will not make sources and evidence magically appear. Could you please elaborate on why you think they will fail to achieve their goals?
- intended 10y ago
  1) I have provided examples of how adversaries can manipulate the naive implementation described above. Countering one example shouldn't be seen as countering the class. 2) to answer your specific question - self referential information loops already exist. News paper makes a claim, claim is put onto Wikipedia. That claim is repeated by other websites, which in then use wikipedia as the source. How will wiki tribune solve this? By doing longform research? Going out in the field and finding the facts? That's not what this setup is good for. It assumes that fact checkers can check facts, at the speed of the current news cycle. Fact is that this verification can't be done fast enough and broad enough to cover ground to be useful, unless it gets a multi billion dollar investment.
  - vinceguidry 10y ago
    It doesn't have to solve it perfectly and in every case. But by building a human apparatus it can apply human ingenuity at scale to tackle the problem. Wikipedia mainly fails around the margins. Yes, initially bad actors can game the system. But success brings more attention and eventually the problems are fixed.
    - intended 10y ago
      But the margins are the issue here, and this is all at the frequency of the news cycle. Take a look at the objections put together at the top of the comment tree on this page. They point out exactly why this won't work. Do consider that this has to happen at the speed of the news cycle! This means that volunteers and journos have to report fast enough to be relevant or helpful. Thats a lot less time for volunteers to fact check or respond.
      - vinceguidry 10y ago
        The goal does not have to be to ascertain and adjudicate truth. It only has to detect attempts to deceive. Right now we don't have a good way of doing that other than everybody building up their own internal filter. Perfection is the enemy of the good.
dahauns 10y ago
> But thats the key difference - wikipedia is not the news, and the news is not an encyclopedia. To go one step further: Wherever Wikipedia actually does approach the vicinity of "news" (i.e. articles about current events/politics/persons etc.), it has been shown time and again to be prone to manipulation just like your scenarios for wikitribune, and that it actually doesn't work very well in this area.