[SamBam]

Yes, but that's not the point. That merely shows that we still need to trust someone -- you.

Specifically, let's say you support belief A, and I want to add a whole bunch of facts that support belief B. You're still the gatekeeper to decide whether I get to be a contributor. There's no way for someone to know that you're going to approve equally-qualified contributors on different sides of an issue, so they're always going to wonder whether there are voices or facts being omitted.

(But if that's just the plan for beta, that's fine.)

[YazIAm]

Indeed, manual vetting is only for alpha. I should reiterate - the point of this type of open fact checking is you can always verify everything for yourself, so you don't need to trust my credentials.

Long term every review, even those that are flagged, will be accessible. Albeit, those that are flagged will be in a separate section, but the point is they will always be accessible, so that you never have to trust me or the community, you can always review for yourself.

[SamBam]

> I should reiterate - the point of this type of open fact checking is you can always verify everything for yourself, so you don't need to trust my credentials.

Again, not for the omission of facts, or the omission of counter-evidence.

E.g, suppose you only let in contributors who agree with you. An article is posts with "Fact A," which you happen to agree with. A bunch of your hand-picked contributors put up evidence to support "Fact A." No one ever posts the evidence debunking "Fact A."

So there's no way to "verify" anything, because we can't see what's not there. Most readers will be satisfied that "Fact A" is well-sourced.

So it's not enough to say that the reader can verify everything and not need to trust you. I mean, they could do their own research to Google the evidence debunking Fact A, but they could do that anyway and the platform doesn't support them.