Kalcifer @ Kalcifer @sh.itjust.works

All of this user's content is licensed under [CC BY 4.0](https://creativeco

---

查看更多

帖子

161

评论

1,710

加入于

2 yr. ago

[…] Many corners are cut in the modern day of endless news cycles, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t require work to do properly.

I agree.

[…] That doesn’t need to be novel. Verifying a source or a piece of information often just requires reaching out to a primary source to have them confirm the second-hand report that is available elsewhere. Not all journalism is built by aggregating other reports, the process needs to start somewhere. And you can’t just take the fact that a source is mentioned as a guarantee of accuracy, you have to verify information. […]

I feel like this could be self-limiting — once enough independent verifications have been completed and released, the collection of them should reach a point where its deemed unnecessary to further prove its veracity. I think it would be akin to meta-analysis.

[…] it takes a lot of work to learn to bypass [confirmation bias].

I agree.

[…] good journalism isn’t self-evident. If it was, we wouldn’t need to have this conversation because the free market would lift up good journalism, presumably.

Hm, perhaps my usage of "self-evident" isn't super accurate here — I agree that one needs to be taught/be in possession of the knowledge for how to determine if a sample of journalism is "good". What I mean to say is that I think articles contain within themselves all that is required to determine if they are examples of good or bad journalism ­— all that's required is for someone to know what to look for in the article to determine that for themself.

Everybody is capable of being a journalist, but not everybody knows how. Qualifications are just some confirmation that someone has gone through some training. The training is to get the required skills. Capacity to get there doesn’t mean everybody is born with the right skillset or this would not be an issue in the first place.

Hence the education angle. You train kids earlier while the subjects they study are universal and prevent a scenario where a lot of people can’t fact check their own information or aren’t aware of their own biases.

I agree.

Could you elaborate?

[…] The last few years have been basically “get it written, get it out the door and fact check later if time allows”. […]

[…] Anecdotally, it would explain a great deal.

[…] it […] would [also explain] the almost certain fact that you personally choose not to actually pay for journalism

I'm not sure I follow your logic. Could you clarify what you mean?

[…] the almost certain fact that you personally choose not to actually pay for journalism, despite criticizing it liberally.

Are you saying that one's criticism of journalism is only valid if they pay for it?

[…] the almost certain fact that you personally choose not to actually pay for journalism […]

What makes you so sure that I would be opposed to paying for journalism?

[…] We have specialized professions for a reason.

What exactly are you inferring with this? Do you mean that journalists should be licensed?

The world you are advocating cannot work. […]

Could you outline your rationale for why it cannot work?

In your opinion, what exactly would qualify as abuse of defamation laws? Could you provide an example for clarity?

[…] Do you advocate trusting nobody about anything and somehow doing all the research yourself? […]

It's more that I think reputation increases the probability that a claim is accurate, but it isn't proof of accuracy. That being said, even if an entity is trustworthy, I think they still have a responsibility to maintain that trust by being transparent in the claims that they make — I think they shouldn't ride on the coattails of current public opinion.

[…] Would you dismiss your doctor for their “appeal to authority” when they open a medical textbook? […]

Trusting the doctor's word simply because they are a doctor would be an appeal to authority; whereas, referencing a medical textbook would be citing a source, and therefore not conjecture.

Can you ping the Jellyfish server from the laptop? Can any other device access the Jellyfish server?

Statistics of what?

I'm not sure I follow what you mean. Would you mind stating your point more explicitly?

What do you mean by "crowdsource" in this context?

Personally, I'm asking it because I'm considering running an instance of my own, and I want to know what to expect. This is an issue that concerns me.

I'm not sure I understand your point. Essentially the only point that I was making was that for what's written to not be considered conjecture, any claims that it makes must be cited ^[1].