The recent Wikitribune initiative seems to be based on the premise that the antidote to fake news is a collaborative news outlet. According to this premise, readers would confer authority to Wikitribune since they would be able to participate in the reviewing/reporting process. As a result fake news would be debunked. The end. Or is it?

In my opinion the problem runs deeper than that. In the Wikipedias there is a tight control on which sources are given credibility. This consensus-building is possible because the active community represents a very particular subset of the general population, and as such it is possible to create a cultural hegemony (cf. Gramsci). When smaller groups have not been able to fit into that cultural hegemony they have created their own projects where that is possible for them (for instance, Conservapedia).

Rational beings tend to agree that it is in one's interest to follow the same principles as the scientific thought (systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses). But what if a person chooses to step out of that framework? What if a person chooses to believe a lie, or to believe another one (person, newspaper) who tells a lie? This pattern of thought that seems so alien to rational beings actually shouldn't come as a surprise when looking at how lies (or "alternative facts/realities") have been used through all human history to shape or challenge the distribution of power.

I think there is a deep philosophical issue that the Wikitribune initiative failed to capture. And it is not just about fake news, it is also about other topics like irrational anti-vax fears, climate change denial, etc. If we want freedom of thought (and, as such, cannot be (en)forced), how could we attract people "out of the cave into the light"? That the issue is so old, suggests that there is no easy answer.

In general people tend to believe what benefits their perceived existential image. If, for instance, that image is based on maintaining an unsustainable lifestyle, that is problematic in the long run, specially when reaching physical constraints (resource depletion, biosphere destruction, etc). It is under those circumstances that anger is created and directed to potential enemies of that self-created existential image. "It must be the immigrants, or bad politicians, or stupid citizens, or a previous generation". But few people would be ready to stop that train of thought and ponder about it. In a way fake news are just a symptom of a more serious disease.

Wikitribune is the right step in the direction of becoming more frustrated with our fellow citizens. And even that might be a victory. Sometimes you just need to fail in order to be able to go much deeper in understanding the issue, and then change radically of approach. I wish the initiative to be as successful as it can. And I also hope that its participants do not lose sight of the end goal. It might be less about the news themselves, and more about creating a better understanding between human beings and how to enable them to make do without lies.

Cheers, Micru