Would be nice to avoid having to open another tab to do fact checking - having some kind of a summary or something beyond "10 verifications" would at least let me know if opening the new tab is really worth it. Ideally the article and all verifications would live in one tab.
Show HN: I made a platform for journalists to “open source” their fact checking
101–110 of 303 posts
Re: Show HN: I made a platform for journalists to “open source” their fact checking
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just because something has flaws doesn’t mean it’s not a good idea to do it.
There wasn't anything said about Wikipedia being a bad idea, but rather that it shouldn't be your sole source for fact-checking. I've learned that people only trust Wikipedia to the point at which it confirms their biases.
Part of the problem is that Wikipedia is generally pretty darn accurate. Everybody always talks about funny vandalism stories, but generally it's pretty good. The issue of course is that there's parts of it that definitely aren't correct.
This makes it easy to say "Well if it's accurate 99% of the time then it must confirm what I thought!".
Re: Show HN: I made a platform for journalists to “open source” their fact checking
#103Great project, but this seems like a classic example of a programmer naively assuming a technical solution can solve a social problem.
This is definitely worth trying, however.
I'm a bit jealous because I had nearly the same idea back when I worked in public radio, but didn't have the time to implement it. Basically it was about having facts and quotes exist as embedded units within articles, all with their own individual records of verification and relationships to all the articles in which they were used. I'm really glad someone is taking a shot at this, even though I have my doubts as to whether journalists will take it seriously.
YazIAm: If you want any further inspiration, here's my old github issue where I wrote about this concept: https://github.com/SCPR/SCPRv4/issues/718
I don't know what all the criteria are, but you should consider applying for a Knight Foundation grant: https://knightfoundation.org/apply/
Re: Show HN: I made a platform for journalists to “open source” their fact checking
#104Would be nice to avoid having to open another tab to do fact checking - having some kind of a summary or something beyond "10 verifications" would at least let me know if opening the new tab is really worth it. Ideally the article and all verifications would live in one tab.
Also, instead of a dedicated site, a browser extension allowing you to select text then right-click to get facts would work better.
Re: Show HN: I made a platform for journalists to “open source” their fact checking
#105Great project, but this seems like a classic example of a programmer naively assuming a technical solution can solve a social problem.
Agreed, it is also a question of goals. Journalists can bend "facts" to support the argument they want. Title are 99% click-bait anymore. Sure there are some people who want to present fair and balanced view points but that takes a ton of work and time. Most "journalism" these days is get likes and move on.
"These days" suggests that this is something new. Tabloids and magazines have been doing bunk journalism for decades. Now they are motivated by getting clicks to inflate ad costs instead of getting sales to inflate ad costs. The only thing that has changed is the delivery method. The reliable sources of journalism are unchanged as well. There are plenty of new online tabloids and "e-zines" but journalism still comes from the same places.
Re: Show HN: I made a platform for journalists to “open source” their fact checking
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed, it is also a question of goals. Journalists can bend "facts" to support the argument they want. Title are 99% click-bait anymore. Sure there are some people who want to present fair and balanced view points but that takes a ton of work and time. Most "journalism" these days is get likes and move on.
Right. Many prominent newsrooms seem to regard fact checking as an obstacle to avoid. Still, it seems valuable to make it easy for readers to view the supporting or contradictory evidence. That might’ve stymied many notable media hit-pieces. Of course, many newsrooms wouldn’t want this (at least I can’t imagine The Guardian and it’s ilk would want to draw attention to their own impoverished fact:BS ratios), so it wou…
People post contradictory evidence to journalism they don't like all the time. Their "evidence" is usually conspiracy theory crap that can't pass even logic checking, much less fact checking.
Re: Show HN: I made a platform for journalists to “open source” their fact checking
#107Great project, but this seems like a classic example of a programmer naively assuming a technical solution can solve a social problem.
This is definitely worth trying, however. I'm a bit jealous because I had nearly the same idea back when I worked in public radio, but didn't have the time to implement it. Basically it was about having facts and quotes exist as embedded units within articles, all with their own individual records of verification and relationships to all the articles in which they were used. I'm really glad someone is taking a shot a…
Just read through some of your repo, ravenstine. Very cool! I'll be sending you an email :)
Re: Show HN: I made a platform for journalists to “open source” their fact checking
#108What problem does this solve that existing reputation systems don't? When I read a New Yorker article, for example, part of what my subscription is paying for is considerable skilled labor by a group of in-house fact checkers. How does moving this work to an outside free platform improve the situation? Moreover, how do you replicate work like calling sources to verify statements before publication? I wrote a short pi…
The goal is to capture the fact checking process and enable any reader to review it for themselves. Certainly some publications currently have an excellent fact checking process, but very few make their fact checking open and transparent. As for "how do you replicate work like calling sources to verify statements before publication?" Good question. Currently this is only designed to open up the fact checking which in…
Congratulations on this; it looks great.
Currently this is only designed to open up the fact checking which involves public primary sources.
Limiting the scope to this is wise. It's a tractable problem and it's better journalism. The types of journalists who write "this unnamed source implied that this other unnamed source had implied to another unnamed source..." articles won't like this sort of tool, but those journalists should be encouraged to change careers.
Some might not realize that articles like that are fairly common. For an example, I went to NYT homepage and this was the first article: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/03/us/politics/william-barr-...
First sentence: "Some of Robert S. Mueller III’s investigators have told associates that Attorney General William P. Barr failed to adequately portray the findings of their inquiry and that they were more troubling for President Trump than Mr. Barr indicated, according to government officials and others familiar with their simmering frustrations."
This sort of crap gets swept under the rug within a couple of weeks, but we're certainly paying attention to it now.
Re: Show HN: I made a platform for journalists to “open source” their fact checking
#109Awkward 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.
Re: Show HN: I made a platform for journalists to “open source” their fact checking
#110well done, thanks for sharing.