THE QUESTION
Why do false claims spread faster than corrections?
Spend your stickers on what matters most. An idea with evidence can take a held seat.
closed · back to Actions
Viewing as guest. Enter a handle to join and take part.
Your sticker budget
One per idea, 6 total. Floor is one vote.
5 places are held for overlooked ideas — nominate one with a link, and it counts once 2 people agree the source is relevant.
why
At stage close one nominee enters by random draw and the rest by nomination count, at most one per stakeholder class. A model checks only whether the page is about the same subject — never whether it proves the claim. That judgement is the room's, and a nomination nobody else stands behind takes no seat.
Fact-checking grants come from the bodies whose claims are checked
Not an accusation: an institution can do this with everyone acting in good faith.
Nothing said yet.
CLUSTER 1
Independence is asserted rather than structurally arranged
0 votesdiscussing (1)
So the incentive is to revise quietly rather than loudly
Not an accusation: an institution can do this with everyone acting in good faith.
4 votesdiscuss
CLUSTER 2
Declaring an interest has replaced avoiding one
To be precise: this is about the mechanism, not anyone's motives.
3 votesdiscuss
Anyone with relevant expertise has funding from someone with an interest
1 votesdiscuss
CLUSTER 3
Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported
15 votesdiscuss
Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow
13 votesdiscuss
CLUSTER 4
An error admitted early would have cost far less than one admitted late
0 votesdiscuss
Emergency powers suspend the checks that would have caught it
2 votesdiscuss
NOT CLUSTERED
Nobody has ever measured what a late correction costs
5 votesdiscussing (1)
Advice must be given before the evidence is complete or it is not advice
4 votesdiscuss
A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed
12 votesdiscuss
The team that wrote the guidance reviews the guidance
Scope: the last two decades, not all history.
0 votesdiscuss
The first statement sets the frame and every revision fights it
7 votesdiscuss
Political timelines and evidence timelines are different lengths
0 votesdiscuss
The evidence base is built from studies designed by interested parties
Scope: the last two decades, not all history.
0 votesdiscuss
Officials learned that hedging gets them attacked from both sides
7 votesdiscuss
Committee members are chosen partly for being unlikely to make trouble
0 votesdiscuss
The press asks for a number and prints the number without the range
Narrower than it reads — the wider claim is someone else's card.
0 votesdiscuss
A hedged message is reported as no message at all
0 votesdiscuss
The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it
14 votesdiscuss
The models were right about direction and wrong about magnitude, and only magnitude was reported
Meaning the general pattern, not one case.
0 votesdiscuss
Preprints move faster than review and are quoted as settled
Narrower than it reads — the wider claim is someone else's card.
0 votesdiscuss
An advisory committee's dissent is recorded and not published
0 votesdiscuss
A negative result is not publishable, so the record is skewed
Narrower than it reads — the wider claim is someone else's card.
0 votesdiscuss
Nobody outside can reproduce the analysis that produced the number
0 votesdiscuss
Nuance is stripped between the briefing and the headline
2 votesdiscuss
Saying 'we do not know yet' is heard as incompetence
To be precise: this is about the mechanism, not anyone's motives.
0 votesdiscuss
Nobody is assigned to look for evidence that the advice was wrong
10 votes
↳ nominated for a seat: https://example.org/ops-incident-review.pdf could not read it (HTTPError) 1 of 2 behind it
discussA quiet revision looks like concealment even when it is not
1 votesdiscuss
A fact-checker who contradicts a funder does not get renewed
Meaning the general pattern, not one case.
0 votesdiscuss
Reversing guidance is used as proof the whole thing was a lie
Not an accusation: an institution can do this with everyone acting in good faith.
14 votesdiscuss
The same handful of experts sit on every committee
0 votesdiscuss
Journals gain nothing from publishing a correction
0 votesdiscuss
A minister needs an answer this week and the study reports next year
6 votesdiscuss
There is no routine moment at which guidance is re-examined
Narrower than it reads — the wider claim is someone else's card.
14 votesdiscuss
Fact-checking grants come from the bodies whose claims are checked
Not an accusation: an institution can do this with everyone acting in good faith.
0 votesin focus ↑ · close ✕
Data behind the guidance is not released with it
Narrower than it reads — the wider claim is someone else's card.
0 votesdiscuss
Nobody funds the checking of the checkers
0 votesdiscuss
Retracting a paper takes years and the claim travels in days
Scope: the last two decades, not all history.
9 votesdiscuss