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

[Birgitte SB]

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

> On 08/10/06, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb at 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 
http://mail.yahoo.com