4 ms·

I'd be much more interested in approaches to identifying whether a news source is reliable. First question would be, reliable in what way? Accurate? Timely? Rel

I'd be much more interested in approaches to identifying whether a news source is reliable. First question would be, reliable in what way? Accurate? Timely? Relevant? Unbiased? Then, how would you objectively measure those attributes and score them? Then, what would the thresholds be to separate reliable vs. unreliable?

11thEarlOfMar 6y ago
Note to self: One of the sites the authors used to identify whether a source is unreliable is for sale: www.fakenewswatch.com
jka 6y ago
In the worst case, it might not be possible to assign a reliability score that you can rely on (reliability squared) to a news source; let's consider some edge cases: - The news source has a biased author. Articles on related topics by that author may be untrustworthy and deviate from the score. - A particular author and their team have been worked off their feet for the past two weeks due to internal or external pressure. Their next article may not be as reliable as it should be. - The management of a news source may have changed (potentially months or years ago) and now they have decided that it is time to alter editorial policy. Subsequent articles may differ in accuracy. I think that news workers understand these concerns and take them seriously since it affects their reputations and career prospects. They probably also understand that there's a certain extent to which they can get away with small errors and mistakes. Demanding complete truth and accuracy might make the job impossible, or so time-consuming that the results become irrelevant. So there may be some element of a time-accuracy tradeoff. Perhaps fact-checkers and AI can rise above these challenges, or at least guide them, but we should be wary and allow for corrections, since much of what they do builds upon previously-seen data and consensus on what has previously been accepted as true.
Bancakes 6y ago
People just want someone else to do the work for free, I guess. How many do you think would be interested in the workings?

11thEarlOfMar 6y ago

Note to self: One of the sites the authors used to identify whether a source is unreliable is for sale: www.fakenewswatch.com

jka 6y ago

In the worst case, it might not be possible to assign a reliability score that you can rely on (reliability squared) to a news source; let's consider some edge cases: - The news source has a biased author. Articles on related topics by that author may be untrustworthy and deviate from the score. - A particular author and their team have been worked off their feet for the past two weeks due to internal or external pressure. Their next article may not be as reliable as it should be. - The management of a news source may have changed (potentially months or years ago) and now they have decided that it is time to alter editorial policy. Subsequent articles may differ in accuracy. I think that news workers understand these concerns and take them seriously since it affects their reputations and career prospects. They probably also understand that there's a certain extent to which they can get away with small errors and mistakes. Demanding complete truth and accuracy might make the job impossible, or so time-consuming that the results become irrelevant. So there may be some element of a time-accuracy tradeoff. Perhaps fact-checkers and AI can rise above these challenges, or at least guide them, but we should be wary and allow for corrections, since much of what they do builds upon previously-seen data and consensus on what has previously been accepted as true.

Bancakes 6y ago

People just want someone else to do the work for free, I guess. How many do you think would be interested in the workings?