3 ms·

Overall, this is pretty cool. Good Job. One issue I have with it, though... It would be nice if I could filter what count's as a valid "source". Meaning, hav

Overall, this is pretty cool. Good Job. One issue I have with it, though... It would be nice if I could filter what count's as a valid "source". Meaning, having the BBC or The Guardian as a supporting source doesn't really make me feel much better. Just a thought, but good stuff overall.

JPLeRouzic 3y ago
I just tried and I had the same thought.
CharlesW 3y ago
Did you try it? Each claim results in Supporting, Mixed, and Disputing citations. You decide what it means if [Media Source You Hate] supports or disputes a claim.
- JimtheCoder 3y ago
  Yes, I did try it...that's how I found out that sites like BBC or The Guardian are used as sources. All I am saying is that it would be nice to have the ability to choose categories of "sources" so I don't have to sort through a ton of clutter. Using the El Nino example that was auto filled, a large portion of the sources look like they come from sites that more than likely will be using things like ChatGPT to generate their content in the near future, thus negating any real benefit...
  - CharlesW 3y ago
    Ah, I see. For me, it's just as helpful to know whether [Media Source I Hate] supports or disputes a claim as it is whether [Trusted Media Source] supports or disputes a claim. I'm generally always curious about the spin, especially when I know it's not objective.
    - codingdave 3y ago
      The whole point of checking facts is that it is objective. How those facts are spun into a story is subjective, but if you are checking anything that does not have an objective true/false answer, then that is not a fact. So if you are just intending to report on different spins and leaving it to individual to choose which media to listen to... I'm honestly not seeing how that is any different than where we stand today.
      - CharlesW 3y ago
        > …if you are checking anything that does not have an objective true/false answer, then that is not a fact. The thing is that "true" and "false" always have asterisks, which is why science uses the word "theory".
        codingdave 3y ago
        Relevant links: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact#In_science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact#In_science

JPLeRouzic 3y ago

I just tried and I had the same thought.

CharlesW 3y ago

Did you try it? Each claim results in Supporting, Mixed, and Disputing citations. You decide what it means if [Media Source You Hate] supports or disputes a claim.

JimtheCoder 3y ago
Yes, I did try it...that's how I found out that sites like BBC or The Guardian are used as sources. All I am saying is that it would be nice to have the ability to choose categories of "sources" so I don't have to sort through a ton of clutter. Using the El Nino example that was auto filled, a large portion of the sources look like they come from sites that more than likely will be using things like ChatGPT to generate their content in the near future, thus negating any real benefit...
- CharlesW 3y ago
  Ah, I see. For me, it's just as helpful to know whether [Media Source I Hate] supports or disputes a claim as it is whether [Trusted Media Source] supports or disputes a claim. I'm generally always curious about the spin, especially when I know it's not objective.
  - codingdave 3y ago
    The whole point of checking facts is that it is objective. How those facts are spun into a story is subjective, but if you are checking anything that does not have an objective true/false answer, then that is not a fact. So if you are just intending to report on different spins and leaving it to individual to choose which media to listen to... I'm honestly not seeing how that is any different than where we stand today.
    - CharlesW 3y ago
      > …if you are checking anything that does not have an objective true/false answer, then that is not a fact. The thing is that "true" and "false" always have asterisks, which is why science uses the word "theory".
      - codingdave 3y ago
        Relevant links: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact#In_science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact#In_science