[Sven7]

Amen.

It's an unfortunate effect of social media and the information overload. People get flooded with info. They spot hypocrisy. They think they are doing gods works by pointing it out. They get encouraged by the likes and retweets. And we get an endless cycle of people who have no idea what to do about hypocrisy upvoting each other.

The architecture needs to change. We have hit peak hypocrisy detection. You can detect hypocrisy in anything by spending a few days looking into things just like the "activist" editors have. The kind of people who do things about hypocrisy...well...where's the algo for that?

[iamcurious]

I think we are close, but we have yet to reach peak hypocrisy detection. We could have a wiki of hypocrisy, where you can search for a certain person and find out all the times they contradicted themselves, possibly with justifications. (Maybe evidence changed their minds and they stand corrected.) We could have an hypocrisy rating weighted by influence on the matter. For example:

Mr. John Smith has contradicted himself x% of the time in matters where he has a strong influence and provided a justification backed by evidence for only y%. On z% of the topics he has contradicted himself, he has offer a threshold of evidence required to change his mind again. He has violated j% of those thresholds. All this gives him an overall coherency rating of k% which puts him in the nth in the ranking of his colleagues.

That would be peak hypocrisy.