[Foundation-l] Ensuring veracity of articles based on print sources

[Birgitte SB]

--- Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 06/10/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net>
> wrote:
> > Andrew Gray wrote:
> >
> > >On 03/10/06, James Hare <messedrocker at 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 
http://mail.yahoo.com