Fact Checks and Context for Wayback Machine Pages
blog.archive.org
Fact Checks and Context for Wayback Machine Pages
1–10 of 40 posts
Re: Fact Checks and Context for Wayback Machine Pages
#2This stuff makes me REALLY nervous. Its one thing to have a discussion about the here and now and debate what is true or not. There are plenty of very good fact checkers to help with this.
Wayback though is now going back and promoting a chosen context. History should be preserved for its integrity. If someone said something false let it stand on its own feet. Let individuals look at the content and context and decide on their own if it is true.
They say that victors write history, but that shouldn't be the goal.
Re: Fact Checks and Context for Wayback Machine Pages
#3This stuff makes me REALLY nervous. Its one thing to have a discussion about the here and now and debate what is true or not. There are plenty of very good fact checkers to help with this. Wayback though is now going back and promoting a chosen context. History should be preserved for its integrity. If someone said something false let it stand on its own feet. Let individuals look at the content and context and decid…
[deleted]
Re: Fact Checks and Context for Wayback Machine Pages
#4Who asked for this?
Re: Fact Checks and Context for Wayback Machine Pages
#5I think I've seen this movie before. You better start grabbing from the archive what you don't want to be lost forever.
Re: Fact Checks and Context for Wayback Machine Pages
#6This stuff makes me REALLY nervous. Its one thing to have a discussion about the here and now and debate what is true or not. There are plenty of very good fact checkers to help with this. Wayback though is now going back and promoting a chosen context. History should be preserved for its integrity. If someone said something false let it stand on its own feet. Let individuals look at the content and context and decid…
> Let individuals look at the content and context and decide on their own if it is true
That is literally what they are doing. They are literally linking to context and other articles.
People can make up their own minds about Wayback Machine's content. They added even more information to help make up your mind on content that expresses a contentious opinion. That super helpful since I want to see as many sides as possible! Why would you want to censor that context unless you want to manipulate people into believe blatantly false misinformation?
Re: Fact Checks and Context for Wayback Machine Pages
#7This stuff makes me REALLY nervous. Its one thing to have a discussion about the here and now and debate what is true or not. There are plenty of very good fact checkers to help with this. Wayback though is now going back and promoting a chosen context. History should be preserved for its integrity. If someone said something false let it stand on its own feet. Let individuals look at the content and context and decid…
> Let individuals look at the content and context and decide on their own if it is true That is literally what they are doing. They are literally linking to context and other articles. People can make up their own minds about Wayback Machine's content. They added even more information to help make up your mind on content that expresses a contentious opinion. That super helpful since I want to see as many sides as pos…
Because the “context” is never fairly applied. I want a little bubble that lights up every time a Democrat says we’re cutting school funding and teachers are under paid. It would just be a chart showing that school funding has tripled since I was a kid and showing American teachers are paid higher than the OECD average. This is a bread-and-butter Democrat assertion that’s made literally everywhere, but fact checkers never add that “context.”
Re: Fact Checks and Context for Wayback Machine Pages
#8This stuff makes me REALLY nervous. Its one thing to have a discussion about the here and now and debate what is true or not. There are plenty of very good fact checkers to help with this. Wayback though is now going back and promoting a chosen context. History should be preserved for its integrity. If someone said something false let it stand on its own feet. Let individuals look at the content and context and decid…
The lesson of the past ten years should be that most people are incapable of looking at the content and context and deciding on their own if it is true, and additionally are being subjected to a constant barrage of paid-for (whether by advertisers, corporate interests, or state actors) psychologically manipulative content.
I'm unsure about this and I don't know the answer -- but it's definitely not Present All Things As If They Were Equally Valid.
Re: Fact Checks and Context for Wayback Machine Pages
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Let individuals look at the content and context and decide on their own if it is true That is literally what they are doing. They are literally linking to context and other articles. People can make up their own minds about Wayback Machine's content. They added even more information to help make up your mind on content that expresses a contentious opinion. That super helpful since I want to see as many sides as pos…
Because the “context” is never fairly applied. I want a little bubble that lights up every time a Democrat says we’re cutting school funding and teachers are under paid. It would just be a chart showing that school funding has tripled since I was a kid and showing American teachers are paid higher than the OECD average. This is a bread-and-butter Democrat assertion that’s made literally everywhere, but fact checkers…
I looked up your statistics and the reason there is nobody calling it out is because, first, that's not the claim being made (the argument is that they earn far less than equivalently trained professions which is objectively true no matter how you dice it) and, second, teachers really are paid less on a per hour basis than the OECD average which makes your statistic super misleading. In fact, the gap in lifetime earnings compared with other countries gets even bigger when you account for their lower starting salaries as well as lower total compensation (including benefits). Ironically, this is a great example of the system working and not propagating partisan "alternative facts" like what you want.
It's all projection. You just can't imagine people adding reasonable context to contentious information because you know that if you were in that position that you would abuse it like with your misleading teacher claim. Nobody is out to get you and no you are not a victim of some sort of liberal conspiracy. It won't hurt you if you get an occasional dose of reality injected back into your brain if you decide to browse the Wayback Machine during the next Fox News commercial break.
Re: Fact Checks and Context for Wayback Machine Pages
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because the “context” is never fairly applied. I want a little bubble that lights up every time a Democrat says we’re cutting school funding and teachers are under paid. It would just be a chart showing that school funding has tripled since I was a kid and showing American teachers are paid higher than the OECD average. This is a bread-and-butter Democrat assertion that’s made literally everywhere, but fact checkers…
I looked up your statistics and the reason there is nobody calling it out is because, first, that's not the claim being made (the argument is that they earn far less than equivalently trained professions which is objectively true no matter how you dice it) and, second, teachers really are paid less on a per hour basis than the OECD average which makes your statistic super misleading. In fact, the gap in lifetime earn…
> (the argument is that they earn far less than equivalently trained professions which is objectively true no matter how you dice it)
I've never seen this argument, and frankly, I don't really understand it -- what are "equivalently trained professions", and why all "equivalently trained professions" should be paid the same?
> and, second, teachers really are paid less on a per hour basis than the OECD average which makes your statistic super misleading.
That's interesting, can you show me some data behind it? I haven't heard this one either.