Yeah, cases where there’s strongly motivated deception are a real test case for techniques for reasoning under noisy data.
I’d sort of like to see an effort like this that embraced both viewpoint pluralism and nymity/reputation.
That is, let anyone who wants to write an article making out a case for the net impact of a given practice, but have a social norm requiring that they actually register under their real names, and provide a mechanism whereby users of the system can easily get a summary of what sorts of claims a given user makes.
Maybe even introduce a layer of site-endorsed evaluations on grounds like does this case depend on unsubstantiated empirical claims, does it take into account what is known/generally believed about the topic, etc., in cases where that kind of objective evaluation is possible. Not so much “agree/disagree” but “observed facts are consistent with/inconsistent with/irrelevant to”.
That could obviate the lawsuit risk, perhaps? I mean, if the site doesn’t endorse any particular position, but just functions as a clearinghouse for individual cases.
Yeah, cases where there’s strongly motivated deception are a real test case for techniques for reasoning under noisy data.
I’d sort of like to see an effort like this that embraced both viewpoint pluralism and nymity/reputation.
That is, let anyone who wants to write an article making out a case for the net impact of a given practice, but have a social norm requiring that they actually register under their real names, and provide a mechanism whereby users of the system can easily get a summary of what sorts of claims a given user makes.
Maybe even introduce a layer of site-endorsed evaluations on grounds like does this case depend on unsubstantiated empirical claims, does it take into account what is known/generally believed about the topic, etc., in cases where that kind of objective evaluation is possible. Not so much “agree/disagree” but “observed facts are consistent with/inconsistent with/irrelevant to”.
That could obviate the lawsuit risk, perhaps? I mean, if the site doesn’t endorse any particular position, but just functions as a clearinghouse for individual cases.