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

11–20 of 303 posts

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

#11

Post by YazIAm »

ahnick wrote: post #7

IMHO reputation is important to build into the base level for a platform like this. Allowing anon registrations and commenting will eventually lead to a lot of noise and abuse of the platform for misinformation. I think some sort of verification of a person's qualifications on particular subject areas and then allowing them to only "fact check" on those qualified areas is required here to have an effective platform t…

Currently (for the prototype), you can start contributing, but your reviews only become public once I've vetted you and given you a fact checking test.

Long term the goal is to have an open reputation score for every fact checker. I'm currently experimenting with different implementations of this, and seeing good promise.

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

#13

Post by murph-almighty »

nahimn wrote: post #8

Finally something viable to combat fake news

I'm cautiously optimistic. I like that this emphasizes use of primary sources, but

1) Some primary sources are dubious, or manipulated. See the multiple versions of Acosta getting kicked out of a White House press briefing.

2) What happens when you have an article that repeatedly cites dubious secondary opinion pieces, but the reader accepts these pieces as fact?

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

#14

Post by v_lisivka »

YazIAm wrote: post #9
robinduckett wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps I am just being nitpicky, and I have no comments on the content or intent of the site (not my industry / area) but grey/blue text on the night sky blue background with white for emphasis really threw me whilst trying to read the text on the site. It may also have to do with Linux's crappy font rendering but I found it unreasonably hard to look at. In my experience, there are few good colours that remain reada…

The goal is to enable journalists/bloggers to annotate their content with their fact checking. Allowing their readers to audit to and to contribute to the fact checking for themselves. In other words, enabling journalists to "show their work". Thanks for the feedback about the colours, I'll play around with it!

It doesn't look like "fact checking". It looks like "citation checking". More popular but wrong opinion will take over less popular but correct one.

Fact checking need a court like system, with judges. Contact me, if you interested. I have lot of real world experience with that.

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

#15

Post by YazIAm »

jaredwiener wrote: post #12

How would a reporter use this? Do you need to have an article already written/published? Does it have to be on your site? It seems like its less for fact checking, which would happen prior to publication, than for fact proof?

I'm happy to provide any journalist/blogger who wants to include this style of annotation on their site a js plug-in to do just that.

The whole fact checking process actually happens within the system, the facts you see on there were collaboratively fact checked by a team of 7 to 11 vetted fact checkers. So that may also provide an incentive for journalists.

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

#16

Post by YazIAm »

murph-almighty wrote: post #13
nahimn wrote: post #8

Finally something viable to combat fake news

I'm cautiously optimistic. I like that this emphasizes use of primary sources, but 1) Some primary sources are dubious, or manipulated. See the multiple versions of Acosta getting kicked out of a White House press briefing. 2) What happens when you have an article that repeatedly cites dubious secondary opinion pieces, but the reader accepts these pieces as fact?

1) Now that video deepfake is a thing, I currently only allow videos as primary sources in rare circumstances (such as the video being published by a verified account of the subject). 2) Only primary sources are accepted. Currently anyone can start contributing, but every claim is still reviewed by a team of verified fact checkers. I hope to scale this long term with a fact checking reputation score.

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

#17

Post by YazIAm »

mshkreli wrote: post #5

Neat tool and well done, but why would a journalist use this? In the day and age of 'fake news', it's pretty clear that journalists don't highly value checking facts.

The idea is that good journalists can stand out by making their fact checking open and auditable

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

#18

Post by xondono »

YazIAm wrote: post #17
mshkreli wrote: post #5

Neat tool and well done, but why would a journalist use this? In the day and age of 'fake news', it's pretty clear that journalists don't highly value checking facts.

The idea is that good journalists can stand out by making their fact checking open and auditable

While I quite like the concept, I think there's something of a catch 22 here.

'Fact-based' generally implies 'lesser impact', it's way easier to catch eyeballs with fakes and click-bait than with better stories, and part of the fake news issues is that professional success in journalism is dependent on impact, not on accuracy (a similar thing goes on in academia).

You'll have to figure out a way to increase the impact of writers with more accuracy (less negative fact checks maybe?) by promoting them in some shape or form. Have you considered top writers scoreboards or something similar?

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

#19

Post by YazIAm »

v_lisivka wrote: post #14
YazIAm wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The goal is to enable journalists/bloggers to annotate their content with their fact checking. Allowing their readers to audit to and to contribute to the fact checking for themselves. In other words, enabling journalists to "show their work". Thanks for the feedback about the colours, I'll play around with it!

It doesn't look like "fact checking". It looks like "citation checking". More popular but wrong opinion will take over less popular but correct one. Fact checking need a court like system, with judges. Contact me, if you interested. I have lot of real world experience with that.

So this differs from regular citations in that:

1) only primary sources are accepted 2) the claim and primary source must be verified by a community of fact checkers

Definitely happy to chat though, will send you an email!

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

#20

Post by jasonlotito »

How does this handle anonymous sources?

Not only do you have to account for what those sources say, but also, a reporter reporting what an anonymous source said can be 100% factual (Yes, the anonymous, valid source was indeed reported accurately), but maybe the anonymous source is incorrect. The reporting is accurate. The source is not.

Basically, a lot of grey area. And with that comes the issue of anything not "fact checked" by a service like this could be dismissed. What harm does that do?

Not a dismissal of a service like this. Rather, just open questions.

Post reply on HN