2 ms·
From the page: "We believe regular people can valuably contribute to identifying and adding helpful context to potentially misleading information." That'll end
by altacc 4y ago
From the page: "We believe regular people can valuably contribute to identifying and adding helpful context to potentially misleading information."
That'll end well! ;) Problem is that on Twitter people aren't "regular", they're either seeking their own echo chamber for confirmation bias or the opposing echo chamber to insult, so crowd sourced feedback will simply be used as a tool for either of those.
- davedx 4y agoI dunno, Wikipedia is 100% based on regular contributors and it's turned out exceptionally well
- blitzar 4y agoWikipedia is not for profit, twitter is.
- insickness 4y agoIt doesn't work for controversial topics.
- jfengel 4y agoIt is, but it has the opposite issue. Wikipedia isn't a place for opinions and it doesn't portray itself as a "free speech zone". It easily rejects new information. Too easily, in that "notability" can bias it towards rejecting consequential but obscure historical figures, especially from people who were marginalized at the time. That's great for making Wikipedia safer from abject misinformation, which is a huge plus. It's less good at ongoing discoveries and news.