I started out wanting to write another analysis post (since it seems to be the most profitable in terms of payout), but I decided to spend time thinking about the long term vision of #bisteemit and #statistics and how it might better fit into the Steemit platform. Judging by some of the recent controversy surrounding the accuracy and interpretation of datasets from the blockchain, I wanted to propose a process that I believe will help bring information/data generated on the blockchain into public discussion, and ensure that we don't get bogged down into the details of trying to win an argument but lose the point along the way.
One of the online publications that I have used as a source of information on topical issues is The Conversation (theconversation.com/au), in particular because they have a process of fact checking process that I think lends a lot of credibility to their slogan of "Academic rigour, journalistic flair".
https://theconversation.com/how-we-do-factchecks-at-the-conversation-73134
For those that don't want to watch the entire video, here is a summary of the process:
- anyone can identify a claim that they want to be fact checked
- a subject matter expert (author) is chosen to examine the evidence and write a post on their conclusion about the claim
- the person who makes the claim is also given the right of reply
- a second subject matter expert (blind reviewer) is given a draft of the post without knowing who the author is to provide a second opinion on the claim and fact check of this claim
- finally the post goes through an editorial process to remove unnecessarily jargon and inflammatory language to ensure it is unbiased and appropriate for the general public
- the fack check post is published with the name of the author and blind reviewer
I know that this sounds excessive for a place like Steemit, but in the context of #bisteemit and #statistics I think we should be using our knowledge and expertise to provide the type of investigative/data journalism that can set us apart from other channels that don't subject themselves to this level of scrutiny. We can continue to look into areas of the blockchain that we feel is important, but a greater involvement in the matters that concern the rest of the Steemit community will give us more relevance and engagement with type of conversation we want to have with everyone else.
I think that as a service it would be invaluable to new comers or whales that use their powers instead of facts to influence outcomes in discussion, so as to provide an objective voice of reason in many of the lengthy and unresolved comment wars/debates encountered on Steemit.
Take for example posts that don't really provide much more details, or tell the story from a single person's point of view when making quite strong claims:
- https://steemit.com/steem/@tomaso88/proof-steemit-is-a-scam-and-a-ponzi-scheme
- https://steemit.com/steemit/@jerrybanfield/meet-steem-s-1-author
Or looking at the cases that @sherlockholmes has tried to tackle:
- https://steemit.com/steemit-abuse/@sherlockholmes/case-12-rtdcs-is-growing-a-gang-of-sock-puppets
- https://steemit.com/steemit-abuse/@sherlockholmes/case-11-aliexpress-and-some-voting-bots-making-rewards-without-an-effort
Or even some of the posts in #steem-abuse:
I think that the people who point out these things do a great public service by bringing issues of concern to the community's attention, but sometimes the hard work can be undone when there isn't a more rigorous process applied to the examination of facts and details presented (I am not saying whether this is the case or not in these examples).
So if we can apply a more rigorous process to the examination of these claims using facts and peer-review to provide more transparency and accuracy, it may have prevented some of the unnecessary and less than friendly exchanges that resulted in some loss of goodwill among fellow Steemians.
Update:
As soon as I started taking an interest in this issue, another post I found illustrates why this service would be very useful, especially in cases where someone on steemit feels grievance against another user and both sides are being supported with no one willing to take a step back or resolve the issue in an amicable manner. I think a fact check service would cut through some of the claims and promote a better conversation like I have seen elsewhere on the platform where people are given their say without getting too personal...
https://steemit.com/steemit/@techslut/why-i-am-quitting-steemit-and-you-should-to
Is it really true that multiple accounts don't have a cumulative effect?
Here is a claim and a counter-claim but no evidence to support either side
Here is another claim with no evidence to support the statement.