On 06/10/06, Ray Saintonge
<saintonge(a)telus.net>
wrote:
Andrew Gray wrote:
>On 03/10/06, James Hare <messedrocker(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
>It would be simpler just to toss the name
into
copac.ac.uk or
>catalog.loc.gov and see if it appears! But
this
still doesn't tell us
>anything beyond "I am claiming this book
supports
me".
Absolutely! And that claim is only sometimes a
hoax. It can as easily
be a good-faith misinterpretation of the
information.
But of course.
The problem is, the original proposal here was to
deal with people
making up sources - an explicitly bad-faith action.
But the suggested
system is a system that is equally suceptible to
being gamed in
bad-faith. You want to game this? You make a false
claim with regards
to a reputable (but hard to identify) work. Done.
So instituting this system wouldn't deal with the
bad-faith people in
any way, and just create vast amounts of (admittedly
automatible, but
still) make-work for "verifiers". Which doesn't
really help the
project, it just plasters around the original
problem...
So you do not believe in having any organized method
of fact checking? That people should only fact check
disputed articles? I am not sure what your position
is after reading the above.
I think at some point an organized method of fact
checking needs to happen, although it is debatable if
we are at that point yet. My understanding of this
method is it would assign fact checkers work "per
book" rather than "per article" which is IMHO *much*
more efficient. And on top of that it would have an
internal check to discover any person who is not
really doing the checking. And making fact-checking
so divorced from article creation should also
eliminate alot of non-nuetral people from the process.
Of course fact checking is only the first step in
verifing an article, but any efforts along these lines
is an improvement over where we stand today.
Birgitte SB
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around