[Foundation-l] Ensuring veracity of articles based on print sources
birgitte_sb at yahoo.com
Tue Oct 10 12:58:13 UTC 2006
--- Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 08/10/06, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb at yahoo.com>
> > But of course.
> > >
> > > The problem is, the original proposal here was
> > > deal with people
> > > making up sources - an explicitly bad-faith
> > > 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
> > > claim with regards
> > > to a reputable (but hard to identify) work.
> > >
> > > So instituting this system wouldn't deal with
> > > bad-faith people in
> > > any way, and just create vast amounts of
> > > 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
> > of fact checking? That people should only fact
> > disputed articles? I am not sure what your
> > 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.
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
More information about the foundation-l