4 ms·

I am not sure that is a good thing or bad thing? I cannot seem to find in the paper if there is a bias in selection of fact checkers. How is it measured and m

I am not sure that is a good thing or bad thing? I cannot seem to find in the paper if there is a bias in selection of fact checkers. How is it measured and mitigated in fact-checking? The second part is fact-checker qualification. How is the fact-checker's expertise in the checked article measured? There is reference to quality based on quantity of "fact-checking articles" written, but that, even under the best circumstances cannot be considered expertise in the subject of the fact checked article. What I would like to see is explicit & published procedure of fact-checking by every fact checking organization. That is, as a process something like: Article to be checked --> extract statements --> verify statements through predetermined sources --> result. I think it would eliminate most (some?) of the distrust with fact-checking.

ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
I can't find if there actually is much distrust with fact checking, aside from people who literally disagree with the facts. Do you, personally? If so, is there a paper backing why you do? I couldn't find any evidence of bias either, but maybe a future study might find some? As for the qualifications, they're irrelevant to the facts. An uneducated child correctly stating a fact is just as correct as a PhD stating it. Certainly sources could be used to inform the reader, but there's no reason I can see to predetermine/pre-enumerate them. Even Wikipedia doesn't try to do that. tl;dr: all that's really required is for the fact check to be correct
- asfarley 3y ago
  I often find myself disagreeing with fact checkers. No, I don’t have a paper to support this. My disagreement is mostly based on careful reading of the position presented by fact-checkers.
- WaitWaitWha 3y ago
  Hmmm... > I can't find if there actually is much distrust with fact checking, aside from people who literally disagree with the facts. Do you, personally? If so, is there a paper backing why you do? This reads like you are moving the goalpost. I do not have to dis- or agree with the article. I have to trust the fact checkers actually check facts. Alas, I cannot. How could one trust and rely on fact-checkers that "fact-check" comedy, satire, and similar sites? When it comes to top stories, I prefer sites that present a comparison of the same topic across the spectrum sources (e.g., ground.news, allsides.com). Can these sites also be gamed? Yes, but much less and the onus and opportunity of validating the information is right there in front of me. > I couldn't find any evidence of bias either, but maybe a future study might find some? I am not looking for evidence of bias. I am looking for evidence of checking for bias. > As for the qualifications, they're irrelevant to the facts. An uneducated child correctly stating a fact is just as correct as a PhD stating it. I understand the attempt at extreme example, but I disagree. You will have a hard time convincing me that a person not versed at least rudimentarily in the subject of the target article will be able to make appropriate research and validate the claims. Polymaths are rare nowadays, and the chance of them working all as fact-checkers is slim to none, and Slim is on vacation. If you are correct, then in the same accord peer reviews of scientific papers are a sham, and we should just accept all at face value, or have general public do fact-checking on them. (Well, not a perfect example, as many peer-reviews are sadly a sham.)
  - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
    > This reads like you are moving the goalpost. I do not have to dis- or agree with the article. I have to trust the fact checkers actually check facts. Alas, I cannot. How could one trust and rely on fact-checkers that "fact-check" comedy, satire, and similar sites? This reads like you are, in fact, moving the goalposts. While I respect you as a person, you don't have to do anything. What you personally do or don't do, trust or don't trust, doesn't affect whether the fact-check was correct or not. Your goodness and value as a person notwithstanding, 1 person distrusting something is both negligible and ignorable in the grand scheme of things. On the other hand, if there were data saying a significant majority of people share your views that a particular source's fact-checks are actually counter-factual, then there might be reason to discuss it as an issue*. How many others believe that a fact-checking source need to be a polymath to view videos and verify that the president said something in their speech? tl;dr: Are we sure there is actually a problem that needs solving here? Let's fact-check that. There totally could be, I'm just a fan of letting data do the talking. * - Wikipedia does a good job, in my opinion, of litigating such concerns of source reliability (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources)

ImPostingOnHN 3y ago

I can't find if there actually is much distrust with fact checking, aside from people who literally disagree with the facts. Do you, personally? If so, is there a paper backing why you do? I couldn't find any evidence of bias either, but maybe a future study might find some? As for the qualifications, they're irrelevant to the facts. An uneducated child correctly stating a fact is just as correct as a PhD stating it. Certainly sources could be used to inform the reader, but there's no reason I can see to predetermine/pre-enumerate them. Even Wikipedia doesn't try to do that. tl;dr: all that's really required is for the fact check to be correct

asfarley 3y ago
I often find myself disagreeing with fact checkers. No, I don’t have a paper to support this. My disagreement is mostly based on careful reading of the position presented by fact-checkers.
WaitWaitWha 3y ago
Hmmm... > I can't find if there actually is much distrust with fact checking, aside from people who literally disagree with the facts. Do you, personally? If so, is there a paper backing why you do? This reads like you are moving the goalpost. I do not have to dis- or agree with the article. I have to trust the fact checkers actually check facts. Alas, I cannot. How could one trust and rely on fact-checkers that "fact-check" comedy, satire, and similar sites? When it comes to top stories, I prefer sites that present a comparison of the same topic across the spectrum sources (e.g., ground.news, allsides.com). Can these sites also be gamed? Yes, but much less and the onus and opportunity of validating the information is right there in front of me. > I couldn't find any evidence of bias either, but maybe a future study might find some? I am not looking for evidence of bias. I am looking for evidence of checking for bias. > As for the qualifications, they're irrelevant to the facts. An uneducated child correctly stating a fact is just as correct as a PhD stating it. I understand the attempt at extreme example, but I disagree. You will have a hard time convincing me that a person not versed at least rudimentarily in the subject of the target article will be able to make appropriate research and validate the claims. Polymaths are rare nowadays, and the chance of them working all as fact-checkers is slim to none, and Slim is on vacation. If you are correct, then in the same accord peer reviews of scientific papers are a sham, and we should just accept all at face value, or have general public do fact-checking on them. (Well, not a perfect example, as many peer-reviews are sadly a sham.)
- ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
  > This reads like you are moving the goalpost. I do not have to dis- or agree with the article. I have to trust the fact checkers actually check facts. Alas, I cannot. How could one trust and rely on fact-checkers that "fact-check" comedy, satire, and similar sites? This reads like you are, in fact, moving the goalposts. While I respect you as a person, you don't have to do anything. What you personally do or don't do, trust or don't trust, doesn't affect whether the fact-check was correct or not. Your goodness and value as a person notwithstanding, 1 person distrusting something is both negligible and ignorable in the grand scheme of things. On the other hand, if there were data saying a significant majority of people share your views that a particular source's fact-checks are actually counter-factual, then there might be reason to discuss it as an issue*. How many others believe that a fact-checking source need to be a polymath to view videos and verify that the president said something in their speech? tl;dr: Are we sure there is actually a problem that needs solving here? Let's fact-check that. There totally could be, I'm just a fan of letting data do the talking. * - Wikipedia does a good job, in my opinion, of litigating such concerns of source reliability (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources)