[mellosouls]

Community Notes will likely have some of the same pros and cons of wikipedia.

Community Notes are not written or curated by some centrally selected set of experts; rather, they can be written and voted on by anyone ... It's not perfect, but it's surprisingly close to satisfying the ideal of credible neutrality...

Well, that's the optimistic pro. But the con is that if a particular demographic is more drawn to contributing to those notes (or comes to overwhelm Twitter itself), we will see the same problems of bias we see on Wikipedia in (say) social-cultural subjects which - whatever it results in - is certainly not "credible neutrality".

[hajile]

Wikipedia is WAY worse because they enshrine particular editors over particular sets of pages (esp. political ones) to make sure the edits only go the way those people want.

Anyone can review community notes and mark them as useful/not useful.

[chrisco255]

I don't know if community notes takes this into account, but you could weight bias according to how a contributor has voted in the past and medianize the output to prevent "dogpiling" or "brigading" from one side or the other.

[jaybaxter]

Indeed, it does this!

>For a note to achieve a high intercept term (which is the note’s helpfulness score), it must be rated helpful by raters with a diversity of viewpoints (factor embeddings)

https://communitynotes.twitter.com/guide/en/under-the-hood/r...

[ewi_]

> I don't know if community notes takes this into account, but

That's most of the article. If you're asking yourself that, you should read it

[mmq]

Users can rate community notes.

[emilecantin]

90% of the article is about HOW the ratings are taken into consideration...

[Hamuko]

Which sounds like a pretty terrible idea in itself. At least to me, it would sound pretty chaotic if the edit that wins out on Wikipedia is the one that receives the most votes by other Wikipedia users, and if you wanted to get something on Wikipedia fixed, you'd need to gather enough people to support your fix over the previous version.

I've ran into issues with Wikipedia mods ignoring sources and going off whatever priors they had, but at least then I was able to just passive-aggressively berate them on the talk page to get them to bend.

[MichaelZuo]

What's the alternative method for credibly neutral decision making on a public internet site anyone can participate in?

[Hamuko]

"Alternative" method for "credibly neutral decision" would imply that there exists one already.

[MichaelZuo]

It seems a large number of HN users, judging by this post, believes that community notes is credibly neutral.