Highest Rated Comments


AnotherAnonGringo247 karma

Guess a journalist can’t even do some investigative work to see what he’s referring to 🤷🏽‍♂️

It's an opinion piece. Basically, a glorified blog post.

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?

AnotherAnonGringo58 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.

AnotherAnonGringo22 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.