SPØRGSMÅLET
Why does a lie travel further than the truth?
Brug dine klistermærker på det, der betyder mest. En idé med belæg kan få en reserveret plads.
lukket · tilbage til fasen Handlinger
Du ser med som gæst. Vælg et brugernavn for at komme med og deltage.
Dit budget af klistermærker
Én pr. idé, 5 i alt. Minimum er én stemme.
5 pladser er reserveret til oversete idéer — nominér én med et link, og den tæller, når 2 personer er enige om, at kilden er relevant.
hvorfor
Når fasen lukker, kommer én nomineret ind ved lodtrækning og resten efter antal nomineringer, højst én pr. interessentkategori. En model tjekker kun, om siden handler om samme emne — aldrig om den beviser påstanden. Den vurdering er rummets, og en nominering, som ingen andre bakker op, får ingen plads.
KLYNGE 1
Each revision is announced as if it were the position all along
To be precise: this is about the mechanism, not anyone's motives.
stemmer: 6diskutér
Requests for data are answered eighteen months later, if at all
stemmer: 1diskutér
KLYNGE 2
Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow
Narrower than it reads — the wider claim is someone else's card.
stemmer: 12diskutér
KLYNGE 3
Institutions investigate themselves and find nothing
stemmer: 13diskutér
The inquiry reports after everyone involved has retired
Narrower than it reads — the wider claim is someone else's card.
stemmer: 0diskutér
KLYNGE 4
Nobody keeps a public record of which official claims were later revised
Scope: the last two decades, not all history.
stemmer: 6diskutér
The label 'misinformation' is applied to claims that later proved right
stemmer: 0diskutér
KLYNGE 5
You cannot check a claim whose data is not released
stemmer: 6diskutér
Once labelled, a claim cannot get a hearing even when the evidence changes
Meaning the general pattern, not one case.
stemmer: 15diskutér
KLYNGE 6
Most of the people qualified to check are inside the system being checked
stemmer: 0diskutér
People who were punished for being early are never acknowledged
Scope: the last two decades, not all history.
stemmer: 0diskutér
IKKE I EN KLYNGE
Trust falls further from the concealment than it ever would from the error
stemmer: 0diskutér
Peer review is three unpaid people on a deadline
stemmer: 3diskutér
Fraud is found by volunteers on the internet, years later
stemmer: 1diskutér
Being unable to reproduce a result is not itself publishable
stemmer: 2diskutér
The cost of dissent is paid by individuals and the benefit is public
I mean this as an observation; I would want it tested.
stemmer: 0diskutér
So institutions treat all criticism as one category and answer none of it
stemmer: 6diskutér
Replication is unfunded and therefore rare
Scope: the last two decades, not all history.
stemmer: 1diskutér
The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it
stemmer: 7diskuteres (1)
Platforms enforce the label long after the institution has quietly moved
I mean this as an observation; I would want it tested.
stemmer: 1diskutér
There is no body whose job is to be wrong-footed early
stemmer: 10diskutér
A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed
Scope: the last two decades, not all history.
stemmer: 13diskutér
A career is ended by being right too soon
stemmer: 0diskutér
The reply is that release would be misinterpreted by the public
Scope: the last two decades, not all history.
stemmer: 3diskutér
A paper that contradicts the field is reviewed harder than one that confirms it
Scope: the last two decades, not all history.
stemmer: 6diskutér
The few outside are dismissed as cranks by association
stemmer: 2diskutér
The archive of the old guidance disappears from the website
stemmer: 0diskutér
A researcher who audits a funder's work loses the funder
stemmer: 10diskutér
Journalists do not have the specialism to notice a quiet change
stemmer: 0diskutér
There is no mechanism to un-label a claim that turned out to be true
To be precise: this is about the mechanism, not anyone's motives.
stemmer: 0diskutér
Nobody is compensated for having been correct
I mean this as an observation; I would want it tested.
stemmer: 0
↳ nomineret til en plads: https://example.org/ops-incident-review.pdf could not read it (HTTPError) 1 af 2 bakker op
diskutérReviewers are chosen from the same small group
stemmer: 0diskutér
The correction is technically public and effectively invisible
stemmer: 0diskutér
A genuine critic and a bad-faith one look identical from a distance
stemmer: 6diskutér