3 ms·

Yep, 4chan will have a field day with this. I think the goal of this is to harness the wisdom of experts, but can't help but think the end result of this will j

Yep, 4chan will have a field day with this. I think the goal of this is to harness the wisdom of experts, but can't help but think the end result of this will just be more noise in signal to noise search ratio. Without human input as to what is correct and real of these inputs, its just another input that can be gamed.

username223 9y ago
Pretty much. Google was sad when it realized that 10^x layers of "Deep Learning" couldn't detect propaganda, and it will be sad when trying to get people to do it for free doesn't work, either.
- jkeat 9y ago
  I could see this working if sites with a good track record were trusted more when making claims. A site's trustability could be punished when one of its fact checks is flagged for review and discovered to be wrong. Will be interesting with Wikipedia in the mix. It could be the web's fact checking backbone.
  - JetSpiegel 9y ago
    > I could see this working if sites with a good track record were trusted more when making claims. Google mentions this in the docs, but if it's page ranking, that can be gamed, and if it's "pay us to be a fact checker", well...
    - jkeat 9y ago
      It could be "if your fact check gets flagged a lot we'll review it and punish your reputation if it's inaccurate." Not ideal to leave Google in control of Truth (and they might not want the burden), so it'd be interesting to offload that responsibility to Wikipedia, which seems to have a pretty good system for coming to a consensus.