6 ms·

What if we could gamify rating news articles as truthful and unbiased? So take a NY Times article, you get points for everything you find that isn't 100% corre

What if we could gamify rating news articles as truthful and unbiased? So take a NY Times article, you get points for everything you find that isn't 100% correct, whether it's a typo or a mischaracterization. You get more points for finding something in a mainstream publication, fewer points if it is fringe. More bonus points if you are the first to find an error. There are some obvious obstacles like bias being subjective and how do you prevent journalists from getting points from their own articles and how do you do moderation but I think these are solvable problems. Just a thought I had earlier today when I read your comment. I thought what you said was very insightful.

dllthomas 6y ago
So I claim an inaccuracy... how do we decide whether I get rewarded? How do we be sure that process isn't abused/gamed/influenced? Why can't we wire that process up to production of news in the first place? The gamification seems redundant.
- cudgy 6y ago
  Easy. “We” fact-check the fact-checkers that checked the facts of the fact-checkers who stated the facts that the fact-checker checked.
  - curlypaul924 6y ago
    I think you meant this as a joke, but yes, that's exactly right. It's fact checkers all the way down.
- curlypaul924 6y ago
  The gamification is to get more people involved. I can't change the way news is produced, because I don't produce news. But I could make meta-news, which seems to be what riles people up on social media. I agree that figuring out when to reward users is the hard part. My best solution at the moment is to do something like slashdot/HN/reddit/others with upvotes, moderation, and meta-moderation, but I don't think there is any system completely impervious to manipulation.
babesh 6y ago
I already do this. Block and ignore sources that have proven to be untrustworthy. There should be a mechanism to share this but I am pretty such that the more powerful would try to eliminate it.
- curlypaul924 6y ago
  I've done that and the only general news source I have left is NPR. I think I'm foolish to have all my eggs in one basket, but I can't find any other baskets that aren't broken.

dllthomas 6y ago

So I claim an inaccuracy... how do we decide whether I get rewarded? How do we be sure that process isn't abused/gamed/influenced? Why can't we wire that process up to production of news in the first place? The gamification seems redundant.

cudgy 6y ago
Easy. “We” fact-check the fact-checkers that checked the facts of the fact-checkers who stated the facts that the fact-checker checked.
- curlypaul924 6y ago
  I think you meant this as a joke, but yes, that's exactly right. It's fact checkers all the way down.
curlypaul924 6y ago
The gamification is to get more people involved. I can't change the way news is produced, because I don't produce news. But I could make meta-news, which seems to be what riles people up on social media. I agree that figuring out when to reward users is the hard part. My best solution at the moment is to do something like slashdot/HN/reddit/others with upvotes, moderation, and meta-moderation, but I don't think there is any system completely impervious to manipulation.

babesh 6y ago

I already do this. Block and ignore sources that have proven to be untrustworthy. There should be a mechanism to share this but I am pretty such that the more powerful would try to eliminate it.

curlypaul924 6y ago
I've done that and the only general news source I have left is NPR. I think I'm foolish to have all my eggs in one basket, but I can't find any other baskets that aren't broken.