4 ms·
Currently (for the prototype), you can start contributing, but your reviews only become public once I've vetted you and given you a fact checking test. Long te
by YazIAm 8y ago
Currently (for the prototype), you can start contributing, but your reviews only become public once I've vetted you and given you a fact checking test.
Long term the goal is to have an open reputation score for every fact checker. I'm currently experimenting with different implementations of this, and seeing good promise.
- hamitron 8y agoWhat credentials do you have to properly vet people?
- YazIAm 8y agoWell first, the point of this type of open fact checking is you can always verify everything for yourself, so you don't need to trust my credentials. Working on this over the last few years though, I've personally fact checked over 500 assertions.
- adamsea 8y agoI would respectfully disagree. Introduce enough noise into the system and the cost of verification becomes so high that doing so is unrealistic for many or most people. Also, on first glance the app looks great, well-polished, and the UX of reading an article and looking at sources for claim is nice :). Thanks for working on and sharing this!
- SamBam 8y agoYes, but that's not the point. That merely shows that we still need to trust someone -- you. Specifically, let's say you support belief A, and I want to add a whole bunch of facts that support belief B. You're still the gatekeeper to decide whether I get to be a contributor. There's no way for someone to know that you're going to approve equally-qualified contributors on different sides of an issue, so they're always going to wonder whether there are voices or facts being omitted. (But if that's just the plan for beta, that's fine.)
- YazIAm 8y agoIndeed, manual vetting is only for alpha. I should reiterate - the point of this type of open fact checking is you can always verify everything for yourself, so you don't need to trust my credentials. Long term every review, even those that are flagged, will be accessible. Albeit, those that are flagged will be in a separate section, but the point is they will always be accessible, so that you never have to trust me or the community, you can always review for yourself.
- SamBam 8y ago> I should reiterate - the point of this type of open fact checking is you can always verify everything for yourself, so you don't need to trust my credentials. Again, not for the omission of facts, or the omission of counter-evidence. E.g, suppose you only let in contributors who agree with you. An article is posts with "Fact A," which you happen to agree with. A bunch of your hand-picked contributors put up evidence to support "Fact A." No one ever posts the evidence debunking "Fact A." So there's no way to "verify" anything, because we can't see what's not there. Most readers will be satisfied that "Fact A" is well-sourced. So it's not enough to say that the reader can verify everything and not need to trust you. I mean, they could do their own research to Google the evidence debunking Fact A, but they could do that anyway and the platform doesn't support them.
- idlewords 8y agoThis sounds like a job where people don't get paid.