4 ms·
> What problem does this solve that existing reputation systems don't? To turn its slogan into an analogy: the New Yorker is high quality closed source softwar
by delish 8y ago
> What problem does this solve that existing reputation systems don't?
To turn its slogan into an analogy: the New Yorker is high quality closed source software. If you disagree with the New Yorker, you can't file a bug report.
You might say, "I wouldn't want to," either because of something on your end, or something on the New Yorker's end. Continuing the analogy, there are closed-source models, open-source-but-closed-development models, and open-source-community-driven models.
I'm typing this because the problem this solves for me is I often disagree with the news, and I would like to fact check them. Perhaps not--as you mention--by calling sources, but by citing other evidence.
- idlewords 8y agoIf the New Yorker makes a factual error, you will get a lot of public attention for correcting them, and it will be a big deal.
- YazIAm 8y agoI truly believe that post-publication fact checking is a losing battle. If you take a sampling of redaction tweets by media outlets and compare their retweet counts to the retweet counts of the original posting you'll see that that is very much the case.
- hannasanarion 8y agoDo you not think that closed source software allows bug reports? That's news to every closed source op in the world. Every news source has bug reports too. They're called "letters to the editor".