[murph-almighty]

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?

[YazIAm]

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.

[Vinnl]

Aren't text and images more easily manipulated than videos?

[YazIAm]

Haha indeed, but you can't just submit any document and have it considered a primary source on the site. For example, if you're making an assertion about a piece of legislation, the primary source is that legislation hosted on that government's website. If your assertion is about a regulatory action, the primary source is that action hosted on that regulatory agency's website, etc.