Original Source Web Address (URL): https://peakd.com/hive-186786/@crowdfacts/introducing-crowd-facts
Archived Source Web Address (URL): https://archive.ph/FhYLh
Description
This is an example post to demonstrate the ideal format for a 'Fact Check Request'. Use this format when starting a new 'fact check' thread as part of the Crowd Facts project. The description should start out by identifying the author of the original claims to be checked.
At the very top of the post, write the original web address of the page/video/media that contains the claims or information that you would like the community to explore and check out. Then visit Archive.is and paste the address into their archive tool to generate a new address at archive.is (or archive.ph as it is now) and then paste that into the second line of the post. This ensures that the original source material is not lost in the future - archive.is will keep a copy of it. Alternatively, if your source is a video then you may upload a suitable clip of the video to 3speak.tv to archive it there.
Next up, add a good quality image to the post to make it stand out and highlight the topic visually.
Then write a description of the topic to be researched and highlight where on the source page you are drawing our attention to. Make sure that you describe the information that you want to be checked out by the community, including a brief explanation of why you think the information is suspect or deserves to be researched.
Claims Made By Source
For example, this demonstration post lists the original introduction post for Crowd Facts as it's source. I am going to highlight the following quote from that page as the specific claim that I want the community to check out and have highlighted it using 'blockquote' formatting (you can do this by adding a > symbol at the start of the quote):
Web 2.0 social networks, such as Facebook and Twitter, are censoring many people on the basis that their ideas contradict the claims made by 'authorized fact checkers'.
Write as much as you like to specifically highlight what might be questionable about the claim to be checked.
Relevant Sources
If you need to, you can provide extra links and material in the post too, in order to speed up the process of any research that the community does into your chosen topic. Simply add a list of them in this section.
- Facebook’s lab-leak censors owe The Post, and America, an apology - NY POST
- Why social media censorship is worse than useless - NY POST
- How ‘fact-checking’ can be used as censorship - Financial Times
|
|
Crowd Facts is a collaborative project powered by the Hive blockchain that aims to empower and reward YOU as you participate in the checking, researching and sharing of claims/information that are published to the internet. Start Reading Here To Learn More! |
This is a great idea, genius in fact. The more I think about it, the more I believe in it's ability to become something of huge value to wo/mankind, who are currently lost in a sea of mis-dis and piss-information. It could/should serve as go to for real facts, checked by an army of truth seeking warriors.
Just like people are rewarded for verifying bitcoin transactions, so too should people be rewarded for checking facts. Just like the bitcoin network grew to mammoth proportions organically, so too could/should Crowd Facts.
My only thought is that the current format might be some what complicated for the average joe (like me) to submit a fact that needs checking without feeling out of thier depth.
Would it be made easier with a video tutorial of how to be a part of this epic idea?
Or some other way to simplify the process a little to get the ball rolling?
Hi Mark, yes, this project has a lot of potential - we just need to iron out the kinks and improve the process over time. 'Mining the truth' is a powerful idea indeed!
The best way to simplify the process is to create a custom website for Crowd Facts that makes the process of posting requests and leaving comments much clearer - but we need to build up to that.
The main thing is to use common sense when making requests.. People need to make sure that they put enough information into their request that the community can work with it and provide relevant information. We will do our best to work with posters to improve their requests when necessary and our curation levels on request posts will reflect the posts level of quality & completeness.
Over time, the strategy of offering higher curation rewards for more complete and useful fact check request posts should nudge the system in the right direction - but we will continually improve the process regardless.
Note: We will post a Crowd Fact Request very soon that can act as a real world example - it's not really so complicated! :)
Yes,
Great idea.
And I like the idea of nudging with higher rewards for more complete posts. This was successfully done by @canadian-coconut in the @familyprotection project, over time it served as a great way to filter out the white noise. Using a carrot to eradicate the bad apples.
I look forward to the real world example, I believe it will help more people to grasp the idea. I get it now but I have shown this to a few friends and I could see their brains melting in front on my very eye's. Granted these friends are VERY new to the idea of decentralisation and I believe most people on this platform will pick it up without a problem.
Mining the truth........Ingenious
That's great feedback, thankyou. DPOS is interesting in that while it causes a situation where people can feel upset at the weighting by stake - at the same time it gives us a variety of potential applications for promoting action in the community. The stake weighted aspect does open the door problems within the process but there are ways around that, such as the Crowd Facts community choosing to create a layer 2 token for itself and then choosing to fork itself to a new layer 2 token in the event that bad actors gain control. We don't see this process happen much due to the immaturity of the development level of the code that runs Hive and layer 2 tokens, but we expect this to be the accepted way for projects to self govern and to remain free from unwanted control by large stakeholders over time.
I can imagine that new people who are completely unexperienced with Hive and decentralization as a whole would have some problems understanding this, yes! In time we will have more and more examples, a library and software tools to help new people to quickly grasp what the project is about.
"And I like the idea of nudging with higher rewards for more complete posts."
I'm just curious how that differs from any other curation on this blockchain? Rewarding better posts and comments with higher curation is pretty much the bedrock of this place, is it not? Perhaps I'm missing a nuance.
Likewise, I'm interested to see how we can "mine the truth" better here than on other platforms. For one thing, we have rampant censorship in many forms suppressing certain viewpoints (including all "truth"/conscious/anti-globalist-agenda content). Fact-checking has always been important since the dawn of time. How exactly does this blockchain provide new tools? I'm eager to learn.
Ok, I suppose it is similar in a way, but you still see and have always seen questionable posts being handsomely rewarded. Also it is different when you write a post for a community minded project that has guidelines, nudging will be more effective.
I see this becoming like a network. People being rewarded for verifying transactions is not new, but rewarding people for submitting and verifying transactions of truth on a decentralised network is pretty unique in my opinion.
Yes, censorship happens in the form of having your rewards reduced but if you know what you are doing to be right then you never stop doing it, regardless of how many numbers are next to the $ign.
This blockchain is different to me, there are not many truly decentralised networks. Bitcoin is one, and correct me if I'm wrong but hive is the second. Anyway, it's not the blockchain, it's what you do with it.
When I first heard of this initiative I was also trying to poke holes in it, but then I realised it's potential. The current fact checking sites are centralised and they are mostly funded by big tech and bill gates. Having a network of fact checkers who are truly independent and have no vested interest is the only way in my opinion. Just like bitcoin transactions must be verified by various computers so too should the truth.
But it's not a computer algorithm you're suggesting be put in charge of "the truth", it's people's opinions, bias, and beliefs. If Bitcoin ran that way it would fall apart.
I'm glad you're excited. I guess I will have to see it in action to understand it.
Congratulations @crowdfacts! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s):
Your next target is to reach 300 upvotes.
You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPSupport the HiveBuzz project. Vote for our proposal!