Map · Why do false claims spread faster than corrections?

Every room on this question built its own map; these are folded into one. The same claim raised in two rooms is one item, and each link shows how many rooms found it. Where rooms found opposite things, each finding stands, with how many of the rooms that judged the link found it.

1 link found by several rooms · 0 contested · 53 links in all.

found by two or more independent rooms one room another room agrees in its own words, or by a path only rooms that do not count rejected by most rooms that judged it a dispute between rooms

In a claim’s corner, one figure for each room that raised it; past five, a group with the number. Where the caption leaves no room for figures, the number alone (×7).

Under a cause: in how many of the rooms that judged actions against it one of their actions reduces it. Green: at least one room found such an action; grey: none did; uncoloured: no room judged actions against it. The numbers are the actions, listed under the map.

Share this view: as a picture · as a live map for another site

THE ROOMS IN THIS MAP

⚠ All 3 rooms: demo · up to 4 cards word for word the same as in 2 other rooms here

Why do false claims spread faster than corrections?

demo · stands 1 vouch from its source, trusted steward _5a2886a785

counts its verdicts weigh on this map — vouched for by the steward of “Why does a lie travel further than the truth?”

Why are corrections never as loud as the claim?

counts its verdicts weigh on this map — steward trusted by this instance

Why does a lie travel further than the truth?

counts its verdicts weigh on this map — steward trusted by this instance

A room counts once someone accountable stands behind it. ● settled before any map was public; ○ after.

RAISED IN MORE THAN ONE ROOM · 4

A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed	3 rooms	on the map
The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it	3 rooms	on the map
Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported	3 rooms	on the map
Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow	3 rooms	on the map

WHAT THE ROOMS WOULD DO

Each room judged its own actions against its own root causes, at three quarters of its own votes. Nothing here is a vote across rooms: it counts, cause by cause, what each room found. A room appears once its Actions stage has closed. Each number on the map marks a root cause that action reduces.

Reduced in 1 of 1 room:

A newsroom cannot hold a specialist for every field

① Check processes, not only claims, and fund that separately · Why are corrections never as loud as the claim?

Anyone with relevant expertise has funding from someone with an interest

② Publish the confidence and the range with every statement, always · Why do false claims spread faster than corrections?

③ A standing review date on every piece of guidance, published in advance · Why do false claims spread faster than corrections?

④ A red team paid to argue the guidance is wrong, reporting separately · Why do false claims spread faster than corrections?

Checking an institution takes weeks and checking a tweet takes an hour

① Check processes, not only claims, and fund that separately · Why are corrections never as loud as the claim?

Checking the powerful is slower per claim, so it loses on the metric

⑤ Publish who funds each check, on the check · Why are corrections never as loud as the claim?

Each revision is announced as if it were the position all along

⑥ Data released with the claim, or the claim carries a warning · Why does a lie travel further than the truth?

Emergency powers suspend the checks that would have caught it

② Publish the confidence and the range with every statement, always · Why do false claims spread faster than corrections?

Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported

② Publish the confidence and the range with every statement, always · Why do false claims spread faster than corrections?

③ A standing review date on every piece of guidance, published in advance · Why do false claims spread faster than corrections?

④ A red team paid to argue the guidance is wrong, reporting separately · Why do false claims spread faster than corrections?

Once labelled, a claim cannot get a hearing even when the evidence changes

⑦ Fund replication as a standing line, not a project · Why does a lie travel further than the truth?

Peer review is three unpaid people on a deadline

⑧ A public register of every official claim and every later revision · Why does a lie travel further than the truth?

⑦ Fund replication as a standing line, not a project · Why does a lie travel further than the truth?

Retracting a paper takes years and the claim travels in days

③ A standing review date on every piece of guidance, published in advance · Why do false claims spread faster than corrections?

The few outside are dismissed as cranks by association

⑧ A public register of every official claim and every later revision · Why does a lie travel further than the truth?

No room found an action that reduces these:

A quiet revision looks like concealment even when it is not · judged in 1 room
Institutions investigate themselves and find nothing · judged in 1 room
Nobody has ever measured what a late correction costs · judged in 1 room
Nobody measures whether our corrections reach the people who saw the claim · judged in 1 room
The reply is that release would be misinterpreted by the public · judged in 1 room
We are asked to check claims, not the guidance that generated them · judged in 1 room
We label the claim and cannot label the confidence · judged in 1 room

FOUND BY 2 ROOMS · 1

Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow

→

A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed

FOUND BY 1 ROOM · 52

We are asked to check claims, not the guidance that generated them	→	We label the claim and cannot label the confidence
	→	Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported
	→	Nobody is checking the structure that produced the claim
	→	The metric is claims processed
Each revision is announced as if it were the position all along	→	A researcher who audits a funder's work loses the funder
	→	The reply is that release would be misinterpreted by the public
	→	A genuine critic and a bad-faith one look identical from a distance
Emergency powers suspend the checks that would have caught it	→	Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow
	→	There is no routine moment at which guidance is re-examined
	→	So the incentive is to revise quietly rather than loudly
Peer review is three unpaid people on a deadline	→	A researcher who audits a funder's work loses the funder
	→	The reply is that release would be misinterpreted by the public
	→	A genuine critic and a bad-faith one look identical from a distance
A newsroom cannot hold a specialist for every field	→	By the time we could confirm it, it was old
	→	We label the claim and cannot label the confidence
Anyone with relevant expertise has funding from someone with an intere	→	Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow
	→	There is no routine moment at which guidance is re-examined
Editors ask whether anyone else has run it	→	By the time we could confirm it, it was old
	→	Nobody is checking the structure that produced the claim
Nobody measures whether our corrections reach the people who saw the c	→	Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow
	→	A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed
Retracting a paper takes years and the claim travels in days	→	Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow
	→	So the incentive is to revise quietly rather than loudly
Checking an institution takes weeks and checking a tweet takes an hour	→	Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow
Checking the powerful is slower per claim, so it loses on the metric	→	Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow
Nobody has ever measured what a late correction costs	→	Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow
Nobody keeps a public record of which official claims were later revis	→	Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported
Once labelled, a claim cannot get a hearing even when the evidence cha	→	Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow
The few outside are dismissed as cranks by association	→	The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it
Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow	→	The quiet revision is not an event, so it is not news
	→	There is no news hook for 'the advice changed and nobody said'
	→	So the incentive is to revise quietly rather than loudly
By the time we could confirm it, it was old	→	Nobody is checking the structure that produced the claim
The quiet revision is not an event, so it is not news	→	There is no news hook for 'the advice changed and nobody said'
The reply is that release would be misinterpreted by the public	→	Institutions investigate themselves and find nothing
There is no news hook for 'the advice changed and nobody said'	→	We cover the row about the change, never the change
We cover the row about the change, never the change	→	Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow
We label the claim and cannot label the confidence	→	Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported
Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported	⇄	The metric is claims processed
	→	A quiet revision looks like concealment even when it is not
	→	Our funding is project-based and follows whatever is topical
	→	The first statement sets the frame and every revision fights it
	→	A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed
Institutions investigate themselves and find nothing	→	A genuine critic and a bad-faith one look identical from a distance
	→	There is no body whose job is to be wrong-footed early
The metric is claims processed	⇄	Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported
A genuine critic and a bad-faith one look identical from a distance	→	So institutions treat all criticism as one category and answer none of
A quiet revision looks like concealment even when it is not	→	The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it
There is no body whose job is to be wrong-footed early	→	So institutions treat all criticism as one category and answer none of
The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it	→	A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed
	→	Nuance is stripped between the briefing and the headline
A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed	→	Requests for data are answered eighteen months later, if at all

what to do about these →

Rooms differ (2)

Some rooms that judged these found the link and others did not. Each room’s finding stands, drawn with its count: a cause can hold in one place and not in another.

The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it → A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed found in some rooms that judged it (1 of 3)

Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported → A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed found in some rooms that judged it (1 of 2)