Quote from: Theb on Today at 06:41:29 PM

Quote from: neowenyuan on Today at 05:47:03 PM

Quote from: Theb on Today at 03:56:11 PM

~snip~

Thank you for proposing the weighing and credibility system. I am keen to add this system for verifiers/fact-checkers and accuracy of such users can be an important factor as proposed by you. However, there are many factors to consider, especially for giving 'credible' users or fact-checkers a bigger weight on their votes.

Instead of adding more weight to their votes, fact-checkers who are based on the country of interest in the article, can place facts, such as photos taken, or evidence known by fact checkers, to convince other fact-checkers to back his opinion. But I feel that, if someday by any chance this platform is up and running, we might need to change the dynamics of this system regularly, as human behavior can change when we introduce systems like weighted votes, and credibility.

You really don't need to adjust the system entirely since the system itself will be adjusted based on the credibility rank/score the user will have each time they vote. Also to add it should also not be plainly about voting only and each voter everytime they vote should always add in the factual checking they do on why they have voted what is real and fake. This would make your system much easier to see who are credible or not when it comes to fact checking.

It may not be efficient for fact-checkers to provide fact check results. But if there is a need, fact-checkers are encouraged to submit their results of fact check in order to prove another fact checker having inaccurate information, and the remaining fact-checkers can choose to back the respective fact-checkers. A fact-checker can also add on additional results from fact-checking to support existing results from others, like a branch off a tree.

Quote from: Theb on Today at 06:41:29 PM

Quote from: neowenyuan on Today at 05:47:03 PM

Some facts that we believe today, might be debunked in future, from tomorrow till the end of mankind. This platform can be seen as more of a way, for educating people in current times with regards to ridiculous fake news, that can bring inconvenience to major disaster to people. I don't think it is possible to carve anything voted here in a stone, saying it's a fact and it can't be changed.

Thanks again for your input on the credibility system, that is definitely one good way to move forward for this platform.

That's why voting on each news should never be closed since we have cases where news we believe to be true would turn out to be fake/hoax in the coming months/weeks or even years. So everytime there is a new update about the news voters have the time to either switch their both or withdraw their findings in light of new information.

I think in this regard, votes have to be closed anyway, but a new vote can be opened regarding the previous topic, with supporting evidence or update of news, allowing a correction of community opinion. We do not need to cover up mistakes, because the world lacked evidence at one point of time. But when new evidence is present to debunk a previous fact, we give the community another try to correct a previous misconception due to the lack of factual evidence before.

Information travel extremely fast these days as well, if we cannot get a conclusion on a news being real or fake, it might start creating damage to the society if the news is fake, and intent on stirring the negative emotions and reactions of readers, which is something we want to prevent, and see lesser.