Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: I made a platform for journalists to “open source” their fact checking

sourcedfact.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 303 posts

Re: Show HN: I made a platform for journalists to “open source” their fact checking

#191

Post by naasking »

CoryG89 wrote: post #38
Fiahil wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Equally important : Don't display reputation to users other than themselves. Humans will attributes higher trust level to individuals with higher reputation, despite them occasionally dropping false claims.

Does it really make sense to call it "reputation" if you're the only one that can see it?

> Does it really make sense to call it "reputation" if you're the only one that can see it?

Sure, if those with higher reputation have their claims promoted above others with poorer reputations.

Re: Show HN: I made a platform for journalists to “open source” their fact checking

#193

Post by 1000units »

rootusrootus wrote: post #189
ajvs wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does it matter what he says his intent was? He can paint whatever story he likes in interviews, but nobody would appreciate a random person going right in their face and beating a drum, especially a young kid. You can even see him flinching because of the proximity. Not sure what you're talking about "hearing that story", the video evidence is clear as day.

[deleted unpopular opinion]

You assume the drummer was trying to go somewhere such that someone could block his path.

But he was exactly where he wanted, in this kid's face trying to provoke him. And the kid just smirked, earning great hatred and hostility from people who don't think there's any place for a smile in this cold, brutal world.

Re: Show HN: I made a platform for journalists to “open source” their fact checking

#194

Post by tptacek »

stcredzero wrote: post #140
beat wrote: post #109

Awkward question here... can anyone cite an example of a major-media news story that was actually factually wrong in a way that "open source fact checking" could have detected it? Just because a bunch of people believe it's a problem doesn't mean it's a problem. I find the bias, when it exists, is in the presentation, not the facts themselves. And mainstream journalism is really committed to getting the facts right.

can anyone cite an example of a major-media news story that was actually factually wrong in a way that "open source fact checking" could have detected it? There have been many of these recently. One striking one was the Boston Rally for which the mainstream news pushed a "white supremacist" narrative. This was odd, as the few people who managed to come out included a large proportion of brown people, including one So…

Regarding the Boston rally and the south Asian candidate: you're talking about Shiva Ayyadurai, the guy who (in my understanding of reports, which could be erroneous) sues people who contradict his claim of having invented electronic mail, has (to my understanding, which could be flawed) appeared on white supremacist podcasts, and used (as I understand it, based on reports) a caricature of himself as Pepe the Frog in his campaign pins? Who appeared (I have read in sources) in a video with a Charlottesville alt-righter and "blessed" a statue of "kek"? That's the basis of your claim that the media got this story wrong?

Help me understand why you were even paying attention to this drama? Do you really find Shiva Ayyadurai to be a sympathetic figure? I assume no, right?

Re: Show HN: I made a platform for journalists to “open source” their fact checking

#195

Post by rootusrootus »

1000units wrote: post #193
rootusrootus wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted unpopular opinion]

You assume the drummer was trying to go somewhere such that someone could block his path. But he was exactly where he wanted, in this kid's face trying to provoke him. And the kid just smirked, earning great hatred and hostility from people who don't think there's any place for a smile in this cold, brutal world.

I assume the kid wanted the confrontation just as much, hence the smirk and refusal to make a hole for the guy to walk through. Even if it is exactly what the old man wanted, the kid is not blameless.

Re: Show HN: I made a platform for journalists to “open source” their fact checking

#196

Post by behindmyscreen »

ajvs wrote: post #138
beat wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. Whether they were harassing is a matter of opinion. Whether there was a confrontation is a matter of fact, confirmed by the video and photos. If you want to claim the "narrative", you need a link to an actual article with actual quotes. That's how fact-checking works, and your response is failing it badly.

This has been debunked thoroughly. That guy went up to the kids and started beating his drum right in their faces to intimidate them and somehow the media painted the kids as the harasser.

The confrontation was between the kids and the black Israelites. The Native gentleman was trying to use chanting to interfere with the conflict.

Re: Show HN: I made a platform for journalists to “open source” their fact checking

#197

Post by anigbrowl »

bwest87 wrote: post #170
carrier_lost wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Paul Graham is entitled to his opinion. I am a professional journalist and I disagree. Journalists use the word "embattled" the way Merriam-Webster defines it: "characterized by conflict or controversy." Typically it applies to a person who has been heavily criticized, or accused of wrongdoing at length or by many people. Accurately describing a person as such is not at all the same as the journalist declaring a pers…

I think PG is getting at a larger point, which I heavily agree with, that journalists very often use words that imply a lot of "story" that is not supported by "facts". For example, I just went on to the NYTimes Economy section right now, and the second article says "Short of Workers, US Farmers Crave More Immigrants". Crave? Really? Cable news is horrendous about this. They do stuff all the time that's like, "Senato…

I agree, but dramatic presentation is what gets attention. A dry recitation of the facts performs poorly in the marketplace.

Re: Show HN: I made a platform for journalists to “open source” their fact checking

#198

Post by beat »

Macross8299 wrote: post #171
beat wrote: post #109

Awkward question here... can anyone cite an example of a major-media news story that was actually factually wrong in a way that "open source fact checking" could have detected it? Just because a bunch of people believe it's a problem doesn't mean it's a problem. I find the bias, when it exists, is in the presentation, not the facts themselves. And mainstream journalism is really committed to getting the facts right.

>Can anyone cite an example of a major-media news story that was actually factually wrong in a way that "open source fact checking" could have detected it? The Supermicro """backdoor""" story of late last year, where Bloomberg alleged that the company had surreptitiously placed small microchips on nearly all their products on behalf of China without anyone noticing

Was that ever conclusively disproved? By whom? And with what evidence?

That could well fall under he said she said.

Re: Show HN: I made a platform for journalists to “open source” their fact checking

#200

Post by abathur »

rootusrootus wrote: post #98
microcolonel wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there is a technical solution to this problem though. A structured graph of supporting facts (including an analog of identity for the sources and corroborators, pointing to the edges) is an excellent datastructure for maintaining a record of reasoning and evidence for a statement of fact. There is, of course, the social issue of convincing people that this is important, but the underlying issue is in part a t…

I'm reminded of the oft-quoted phrase "you cannot reason someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into." I am not trying to disqualify the solution, more like observing that the existence of provable facts has not yet been any sort of antidote for 'fake news' (whether that refers to the real deal, or the position many people take that any news they don't like is fake news).

I don't think this sort of effort has to be ironclad to be meaningful. The margins could be a big deal, here.

Some sort of attestation toolchain might enable people who care about evidence to produce more strongly-attested cases, and to get a better handle on what is and isn't sourced from others. It seems likely that using good attestation toolchains could create feedback loops for researchers, journalists, archivists, authors, film-makers, educators, students, and other people involved in knowledge production.

These feedback loops might change how they research, where they start, how often they have to re-invent wheels, and raise standards by enabling these people to compete on metrics that might drive more social value than clicks, engagement, shares, or ad revenue.

These effects could be important, even if you never budge the kind of person inclined to consume the information equivalent of junk-food.

Post reply on HN