|
|
|
|
|
by SamBam
2635 days ago
|
|
> 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. |
|