This is the science of citiogenisis. Fact-check is already a sullied overloaded term. It would be better replaced and served by something like “citation-check

This is the science of citiogenisis. Fact-check is already a sullied overloaded term. It would be better replaced and served by something like “citation-check”. There are a panoply of cited sources (“facts”) that needs to be properly vetted (“aligned”) to contribute toward its premise (“fact”). This is why Wikipedia can often lay claim to being more scientific (through sheer column of citations containing of “facts”) assembled by its editors (citation scientists). This is also why many educators teach their students not to cite “Wikipedia” which is (a poor attempt?) to indoctrinate the students into learning how to root out the misleading source (often mistaken as “fact”.) Mmmm, but it’s SCIENCE! Doesn’t necessarily means it’s a fact. Meta (“Facebook”) would be venturesome to claim the science of citiogenesis as there are money, prestige, and power to be gained through shaping “science” of these citations. That is, by using artificial intelligence (AI). Arguably, today’s Fact-checkers would try to use a science process that rarely achieves its “factual” (but really called a premise) claim … in a clean and unarbitrary manner while free of bias: always with unnecessary fillers with a goal to sway the readers with cemented anchors to keep it away from their basic but unwanted “fact”. We call those “fact-checkers” an opinionated citation checkers; they save the readers from doing the work by its artificial power of singular analysis through the curation of its premise (“fact”). Fact-checkers are basically wannabe- citiogenesis scientists that are just merely interpreting their point of views. And readers (students) who failed their educators’ lesson would claim it as “fact”. AI may or may not help and into both directions toward and away from their desired premise. How many different algorithms would be used to dislodge this badly-abused citing of these singular analysis efforts by seemingly “fact-checkers”? Who would be in control of this Machine Learning of AI? Meta (Facebook)! Who oversees these AI algorithms? Meta! And who would be the one that watches the watchers? Meta? And will today’s educators teach these future generation of discerning readers on the much needed distinguishing between citation checkersd vs. today’s “fact-checkers”? (*cricket*)