By Maggie Koerth-Baker at 3:57 pm Thu, Jul 12, 2012
No thanks, the font on that page sucks.
That´s the spirit!
I would rather know nothing about the Higgs boson than read anything in comic sans!
So now I can tell if a different person thinks something is true.
Yes, the hope is that the additional context (well, it’s a bit more specific than just context) will be enough to get you to think about it for yourself!
This is the worst idea in the history of the internet. A single source of “truth”. What could possibly go wrong…
The idea isn’t quite summed up here in one sentence — it’s actually a credibility layer for the Internet, something that is designed to get you to think more carefully about the content you are reading. It presents evidence surrounding the claim in an attempt to help you reach an informed conclusion. (I’m the author of the prototype; http://truthgoggl.es/demo.html)
It is still just a prototype, though. There are some rough edges (as other comments have identified, e.g. esc not closing the modal) and the tool needs more sources.
The instructional facets of this are very poorly illustrated. Not only that, but the popup can’t be dismissed with the ESC key, you have to click the button they want you to click.
Oh, it’s PolitiFact.
If I need someone to tell me “this side says this, but the other side says this, the answer is somewhere in the middle,” I’ll watch South Park, thanks
It’s just a prototype for now — eventually the goal is to include plenty of other sources. The only requirement for now is that the source needs to at least *claim* to aspiring to reach a non-partisan truth and it needs to explain why it reached the conclusion it reached. Algorithmic sources would fit this description, for instance.
This app relies on Politifact, but that organization has been shown to be composed of right-wing hacks and dupes, the latter of which are burdened under the crushing weight of false equivalency.
John Cole said it best when talking about Politifact’s “lie of the year”:
Something that relies on Politifact should not have “Truth” in its name or description.
It relies far more on your brain than it relies on PolitiFact.
The problem is that it is so easy for people to let their own biases limit the functionality of that resource! For instance, I suspect that you are a bit more extreme about your beliefs concerning PolitiFact than you ought to be.
Regardless, interfaces that remind you when claims should be viewed with scrutiny *should* help you ultimately reach more informed conclusions on your own. You are absolutely right, though, that a single source powering such an interface is dangerous. Really this tool needs many sources with many perspectives to reach it’s full potential.
You mean like 9/11 Truth Goggles? I’ll hold out for some Truthiness Goggles.
Reminds me of Dispute Finder, a fascinating extension for Firefox. Point of it is not to highlight what is true and what is false, but what is being disputed.
Mail (will not be published) (required)
evidence-based everything, Journalism, News, Science, skepticism
Submit a tip
The rules you agree to by using this website.
Who will be eaten first?
Jason Weisberger, Publisher
Ken Snider, Sysadmin