> 2.) What counts as a claim?
> 2.) What counts as a claim? Is 'the sky is blue' a claim, or is that common knowledge? We clearly wouldn't flag common knowledge because using the flag when it's not necessary deprecates the usefulness of the flag, but then who decides what counts as common knowledge, particularly across different cultures and countries? Everything, including your example. The entire point is to discourage people from making claims. > 3.) A common metadata way of judging someone online is through their sources. Think of many subreddits which don't allow certain 'left-wing' or 'right-wing' sources. The supporting text will be upvoted and downvoted based on the readers' idea of the source: In the politics subreddit, a NYT 'claim support' would be upvoted while a WSJ one would be downvoted. Instead of using headlines as proxys, the URL would be: "Oh, it's X. They just always lie. Don't even need to check; downvote, nobody listening to THEM could be correct." This is a good critique, but if one were actually implementing this, you'd also need to implement some way to verify that people are actually reading the sources (which in itself is already a big annoying problem). Your other points are also good, but ultimately this thing I'm claiming would be niche due to the friction involved. If it were to not be niche you'd want to put in effort to "validate", or in other words have "trusted" (another problem) members randomly select controversial claims and verify them manually. I don't believe a fully algorithmic approach, even with "the crowd" can work.
Posted by endisneigh on Dec 17, 2021, 6:45 PM
Tags
Related issues
- some bike vendor told me that the biggest problem with regular to ebike conversion was that regular bike frames were not strong enough to...
- I think of this as the kiosk economy.
- What a goofy comment.
- There's lots of evidence for positive influences of Caffeine on the body (some negative as well), especially the brain.
- Compose support in WSLc
- [RFC] Roadmap to v2.0
Raise real-world problems, find people facing the same issue, and discuss solutions.3,000 issues0 comments
support (Other)
some bike vendor told me that the biggest problem with regular to ebike conversion was that regular bike frames were not strong enough to...
I think of this as the kiosk economy.
What a goofy comment.
There's lots of evidence for positive influences of Caffeine on the body (some negative as well), especially the brain.
Compose support in WSLc
[RFC] Roadmap to v2.0
[Feature]: Add TurboQuant Support for KV Cache Quantization
Support for AGENTS.md and .agents/skills/, the community has been asking since August 2025
> 2.) What counts as a claim?
> 2.) What counts as a claim? Is 'the sky is blue' a claim, or is that common knowledge? We clearly wouldn't flag common knowledge because using the flag when it's not necessary deprecates the usefulness of the flag, but then who decides what counts as common knowledge, particularly across different cultures and countries? Everything, including your example. The entire point is to discourage people from making claims. > 3.) A common metadata way of judging someone online is through their sources. Think of many subreddits which don't allow certain 'left-wing' or 'right-wing' sources. The supporting text will be upvoted and downvoted based on the readers' idea of the source: In the politics subreddit, a NYT 'claim support' would be upvoted while a WSJ one would be downvoted. Instead of using headlines as proxys, the URL would be: "Oh, it's X. They just always lie. Don't even need to check; downvote, nobody listening to THEM could be correct." This is a good critique, but if one were actually implementing this, you'd also need to implement some way to verify that people are actually reading the sources (which in itself is already a big annoying problem). Your other points are also good, but ultimately this thing I'm claiming would be niche due to the friction involved. If it were to not be niche you'd want to put in effort to "validate", or in other words have "trusted" (another problem) members randomly select controversial claims and verify them manually. I don't believe a fully algorithmic approach, even with "the crowd" can work.
Comments (0)
No comments yet. Start the discussion.