Journalism Professor Adds Wiki Sensibility To Crowdsourced Fact Checking: WikiFactCheck

from the that-seems-useful dept

We’ve talked about the public’s desire for more real fact checking, as opposed to he-said/she-said style news reporting. And we’ve mentioned various programs that have brought crowdsourcing into the fact-checking game. And, now a USC journalism professor has put this all together to create a fact-checking wiki-based site, appropriately called WikiFactCheck.

Digging down to facts tends to be what crowdsourcing is good at. The problem, of course, is that there often are some blurry lines around what is actually a “fact” and what is not. But, given the (some would say excessive) cultural focus at Wikipedia on forcing a “neutral point of view,” I could see how a similar group of people could somewhat vehemently focus in on specific facts that can be proven true or false, rather than getting too bogged down in opinion vs. facts debates.

Filed Under: , , ,
Companies: wikifactcheck

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Journalism Professor Adds Wiki Sensibility To Crowdsourced Fact Checking: WikiFactCheck”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
8 Comments
Anonymous Coward says:

Big ol’ media doesn’t agree at least not Gregory Ferenstein.

How web journalism can make people seem hateful
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TECH/web/08/16/internet.journalism.politics/index.html?hpt=Sbin

He is shocked at how many different opinions exist on the internet and how they start grouping together to form opinions. He argues that investigative blogging will lead to “a long future of biased, inflammatory “evidence” — on both sides of the political spectrum.”, well it may come true, but is more likely that types like Sara Palin and Andrew Breitbart will face a wall of criticism for being crazy and dumb respectively and that is just that, if people didn’t agree or didn’t see something wrong there wouldn’t be some many voices talking about those types in a negative manner. He argues that people are not capable of rational thinking because he thinks people will be overcome by “motivated cognition” which it is true in a individual level but it fails to materialize in groups, I think he is afraid of the mob mentality and that is a valid criticism, it does happen like in the case of child pornography but that is not something exclusive to bloggers or the internet in general it affects big ol’ media too, to which he pre-empts saying that big ol’ media is accountable because they have managers, which is not true a blogger has to answer to other bloggers that yeld as much power as that one do.

He even manage to contracdit himself saying “But many bloggers are unencumbered by the integrity of balance, and the result was a viral video that led to an innocent women’s firing.”, first he was talking about how people were derailing Andrew Breitbart for his actions and then he uses that actions for which he(Breitbart) was being derailed as proof of no regulations mechanism in the blogosphere.

But many bloggers are unencumbered by the integrity of balance, and the result was a viral video that led to an innocent women’s firing.

Seriously, what are those people thinking?

Hephaestus (profile) says:

Re: Re:

“But many bloggers are unencumbered by the integrity of balance, and the result was a viral video that led to an innocent women’s firing.

Seriously, what are those people thinking?”

Big ol’ media are the same idiots that fell for this in the first place. They didn’t do any fact checking and ran with the story. So they are trying to lay blame else where.

TJGeezer (profile) says:

Re: Bias

Wikipedia is constantly criticized for being biased toward the left, for being biased toward the right-wing’s approved “herd” opinion, and for being too rigidly neutral when the discussion requires coverage of opposing views. It must be hitting some kind of balance, eh?

By the way, saying someone or something “is well known” for this or that is well known as a basic propaganda technique. It’s often used by people who are well known even in their own circles for being idiots. Like Palin and Breitbart and occasional anonymous cowards.

See how easy it is to use “is well known” to discredit someone, with or without any evidence? :-p

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...