Highest Rated Comments

AnotherAnonGringo83 karma

Currently I work with a team of fact checkers to produce the content. Any journalist or concerned citizen is welcome to submit content if they like, as long as they always back it with reviewable fact checking. This concept of "open source" fact checking though anyone is free to use on their own sites, and I'd happily help journalists who would like to adopt it.

So you're just Snopes? I thought the journalists would create and own their own pages, but you're the gatekeeper of what is "acceptable" or not?

I don't know you or your "team of fact checkers". How do I know you're not a front for the Russian or Chinese disinformation campaigns? How do I know you're not accepting donations or dollars from a source that might bias you? If someone broke a story about your employer and it might put you out of a job, how would you handle the publication of that?

AnotherAnonGringo63 karma

The point of “open source” fact checking, is all the primary source evidence and reasoning is completely reviewable by you, the reader.

Snopes also links to their evidence for me to check. So does Wikipedia.

I applaud your effort, but I feel like you've jumped into this without much research.

So by design “open source” journalism would reveal manipulation if it ever happens.

Unless of course, you or your "team of fact checkers" are compromised and you happen to not post a link that might show information you don't want published.

AnotherAnonGringo36 karma

That appears to be fairly standard for most tech companies these days.

Doesn't make it any less reprehensible, but if their tech works and can help stem the tide of fake news BS, then it's a worthwhile trade-off for now.

AnotherAnonGringo21 karma

Sites like Politifact and Snopes are ‘post-publication’ fact checking. They aim to fact check statements that have already been spreading. SourcedFact is about capturing the fact checking process that good journalist go through while researching their articles and then helping them share that with the readers.

I believe what's he/she is asking, is that if people can't be bothered to do "post published" fact checking, what makes you feel like they're going to follow along with a story "pre-publication" that they might not have even heard of.

Do you expect journalists to announce their articles ahead of time? I'm pretty sure that will never happen, due to the competitive nature of journalism and the desire to "break" a story first.

AnotherAnonGringo16 karma

What process or factors are you considering in manually vetting someone who wants to be a fact checker?

And further, just because we can "double-check" the facts a "fact checker" has approved, doesn't mean we're seeing ALL the facts. We're still only seeing what this fact checker has decided to allow us to see.

For example, if the fact checker happens to be extremely religious, perhaps they won't allow allow something as "fact" because in their mind, it's contradictory to their view ... and on the flip-side, if someone is extremely "anti-religion" they may not approve a "fact" for the same reason.

I just don't see how this process is any better than what's currently out there when you have arbitrary humans acting as gatekeepers of what is published and what is not. That's essentially what Fox News and other outlets do now. It's inherently subject to personal bias and at a high risk for manipulation.

A better solution would be to let individuals (like you and me) post our own research and then have the "fact checkers" simply note whether they feel the sources I've posted are legit, questionable, false, etc. Then you let the reader decide. But that's what sites like Politifact already do. And to a much more broad extend, Reddit. And we all know how easy it is to game opinion on Reddit.

I think this is a solution in search of a problem.