I wonder if fact-checking agencies could evolve to some sort of ārating agenciesā; I mean, they shouldnāt only screen for false statements, but actually provide information about who is accurate
Not sure if I understand the suggestion, or rather how you envision it adding value compared to the current system.
Fact-checkers already do say both that some statements are false and that others are accurate.
Also, at least some of them already have ways to see what proportion of a certain personās claims that the fact-checker evaluated turned out to be true vs false. Although thatās obviously not the same as what proportion of all a sourceās claims (or all of a sourceās important claims, or whatever) are true.
But it seems like trying to objectively assess various sourcesā overall accuracy would be very hard and controversial. And it seems like one way we could view the current situation is that most info thatās spread is roughly accurate (though often out of context, not highly important, etc.), and some is not, and the fact-checkers pick up claims that seem like they might be inaccurate and then say if they are. So we can perhaps see ourselves as already having something like an overall screening for general inaccuracy of quite prominent sources, in that, if fact-checking agencies havenāt pointed out false statements of theirs, theyāre probably generally roughly accurate.
Thatās obviously not a very fine-grained assessment, but I guess what Iām saying is that itās something, and that adding value beyond that might be very hard.
Not sure if I understand the suggestion, or rather how you envision it adding value compared to the current system.
Fact-checkers already do say both that some statements are false and that others are accurate.
Also, at least some of them already have ways to see what proportion of a certain personās claims that the fact-checker evaluated turned out to be true vs false. Although thatās obviously not the same as what proportion of all a sourceās claims (or all of a sourceās important claims, or whatever) are true.
But it seems like trying to objectively assess various sourcesā overall accuracy would be very hard and controversial. And it seems like one way we could view the current situation is that most info thatās spread is roughly accurate (though often out of context, not highly important, etc.), and some is not, and the fact-checkers pick up claims that seem like they might be inaccurate and then say if they are. So we can perhaps see ourselves as already having something like an overall screening for general inaccuracy of quite prominent sources, in that, if fact-checking agencies havenāt pointed out false statements of theirs, theyāre probably generally roughly accurate.
Thatās obviously not a very fine-grained assessment, but I guess what Iām saying is that itās something, and that adding value beyond that might be very hard.