On 08/10/06, Birgitte SB
<birgitte_sb(a)yahoo.com>
wrote:
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.
My position is that the proposal originally
suggested in this thread -
of confirming the existence of books so as to deal
with bad-faith fake
sources - just won't work, because it means a good
deal of work but is
trivially easy for the people who we assume are
trying to fool us to
keep fooling us. We need fact checking. But having a
system that
sounds like fact checking and looks like fact
checking but doesn't
work is a net detriment.
Either you misread the proposal or I did. Or else
this message was not in the part of the thread I
thought it was. Because I certainly believed we were
talking about actual fact-chaecking. Not simply
corfirming that sources exist.
Birgitte SB
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around