THE QUESTION
Why does a lie travel further than the truth?
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, 5 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.
Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow
Narrower than it reads — the wider claim is someone else's card.
cluster 2
Nothing said yet.
CLUSTER 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.
6 votesdiscuss
Requests for data are answered eighteen months later, if at all
1 votesdiscuss
CLUSTER 2
Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow
Narrower than it reads — the wider claim is someone else's card.
12 votesin focus ↑ · close ✕
Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported
13 votesdiscuss
CLUSTER 3
Institutions investigate themselves and find nothing
13 votesdiscuss
The inquiry reports after everyone involved has retired
Narrower than it reads — the wider claim is someone else's card.
0 votesdiscuss
CLUSTER 4
Nobody keeps a public record of which official claims were later revised
Scope: the last two decades, not all history.
6 votesdiscuss
The label 'misinformation' is applied to claims that later proved right
0 votesdiscuss
CLUSTER 5
You cannot check a claim whose data is not released
6 votesdiscuss
Once labelled, a claim cannot get a hearing even when the evidence changes
Meaning the general pattern, not one case.
15 votesdiscuss
CLUSTER 6
Most of the people qualified to check are inside the system being checked
0 votesdiscuss
People who were punished for being early are never acknowledged
Scope: the last two decades, not all history.
0 votesdiscuss
NOT CLUSTERED
Trust falls further from the concealment than it ever would from the error
0 votesdiscuss
Peer review is three unpaid people on a deadline
3 votesdiscuss
Fraud is found by volunteers on the internet, years later
1 votesdiscuss
Being unable to reproduce a result is not itself publishable
2 votesdiscuss
The cost of dissent is paid by individuals and the benefit is public
I mean this as an observation; I would want it tested.
0 votesdiscuss
So institutions treat all criticism as one category and answer none of it
6 votesdiscuss
Replication is unfunded and therefore rare
Scope: the last two decades, not all history.
1 votesdiscuss
The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it
7 votesdiscussing (1)
Platforms enforce the label long after the institution has quietly moved
I mean this as an observation; I would want it tested.
1 votesdiscuss
There is no body whose job is to be wrong-footed early
10 votesdiscuss
A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed
Scope: the last two decades, not all history.
13 votesdiscuss
A career is ended by being right too soon
0 votesdiscuss
The reply is that release would be misinterpreted by the public
Scope: the last two decades, not all history.
3 votesdiscuss
A paper that contradicts the field is reviewed harder than one that confirms it
Scope: the last two decades, not all history.
6 votesdiscuss
The few outside are dismissed as cranks by association
2 votesdiscuss
The archive of the old guidance disappears from the website
0 votesdiscuss
A researcher who audits a funder's work loses the funder
10 votesdiscuss
Journalists do not have the specialism to notice a quiet change
0 votesdiscuss
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.
0 votesdiscuss
Nobody is compensated for having been correct
I mean this as an observation; I would want it tested.
0 votes
↳ nominated for a seat: https://example.org/ops-incident-review.pdf could not read it (HTTPError) 1 of 2 behind it
discussReviewers are chosen from the same small group
0 votesdiscuss
The correction is technically public and effectively invisible
0 votesdiscuss
A genuine critic and a bad-faith one look identical from a distance
6 votesdiscuss