all 18 comments

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I'm here for the conspiracies, so a reference system certainly piques my interest. But say we went through all of the effort to implement something like this, who is gonna use it and why? For the few users that submit lengthy text posts, they often include references. And for quality link posts, the link would have extensive references. (Something I don't see here BTW https://eyegambia.org/they-will-create-the-virus-pretend-and-sell-the-antidotes-muammar-gaddafi/)

So what's the hook to make people care or create a community of researchers? I could see adding some kind of flair to post if they are well referenced. Or a badge with the number of references made in a post.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

and allow a new sort of post/conversation which is less post-specific, but grew over time as stories evolve since new links could be added. It's a step towards a full blown wiki, but only a small one that might not be too hard to code

This is pretty interesting. I'm having a hard time imagining it. A group research tool? I'm tempted to say that the existing subreddit -> post -> comment types and hierarchy could be re-purposed in such a way to suit group research. Research_Building_7 is the sub, "Nanothermite Was Present" is the post, and each comment can be a reference which gets up or downvoted.

I also get hung up on what you mean by a reference. Time magazine on 9/11 is useless, but TIme Magazine in 1960 could have had some direct quote that's very relevant to something else, a useful reference.

[–]Robin[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

It would need a community that doesn't really exist yet, well not as such. It's a small step away from Reddit post up/down to something more reflective, so it wouldn't be for all tastes, but it could attract that sort of person. Reference here is quite specific - a URL to somewhere else.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

So we'd be upvoting how good a particular reference is at supporting the main post/argument/thesis? That sounds better than trying to rank certain domains against each other.

Something more reflective does sound very nice.

[–]Robin[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Hmmm. <out of box thinking...> If the posts were nodes of the graph, users could add directed links between them, perhaps of various kinds, e.g. A--supports->B, A--exemplifies->B, A--predates->B, A-contradicts->B [and so by implication [B-contradicts->A]]. This could be complex or simple, but I suggest small incremental steps, since users would have to follow it <back in the box> I enjoy Saidit, and it's a great source of material for further processing, e,g, on a certain Wiki, but in itself it lacks the feeling of building something coherent. To put it another way, suppose someone finds an interesting story, they could easily see other stories the poster has posted, but how easily could they find similar posts? Maybe just A<-relates_to->B would be a place to start...

[–]Robin[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Building any community a long term undertaking. So in the first instance, maybe not so many people would use it -- but it would attract a certain sort of user. In terms of hooks, if refs could garner upvotes as well, that's a possible incentive for good refs. In the first instance I only wanted to post that image together with the eyegambia reference, which was the best I could find -- rather than in two different posts. I thought the difference in feedback of my two posts pretty extreme, so my first intention was just to highlight this to people as food for thought. Then I got to thinking about what could be tweaked programatically. Adding a "supporting ref" textbox would have sufficed to let me combine the pretty picky with the eyegambia ref. If one, then we might as well have many. References could be ordered by score, so the higher rated ones were at the top... Sorry to offer you extra work for no pay;-)

P.S. I share your caution as regards the eyegambia ref. I'm no Arabic speaker and anyway, deep fake.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Over time, a big data set of references & votes could become useful in itself.

The lack of a downvote would make it difficult to discriminate between new sources, and unpopular sources.

The idea is reasonable, and certainly a value-add feature; assuming a strictly altruistic community.

I know that you're not a shill. However, there are quite a few here.
They would love downvote functionality to sabotage the site. :-/

For example: "The Albion Times" would probably be voted credible.

"Are you sure you wish to cite snopes.com - past data suggests that this site is unreliable?"

https://saidit.net/s/memes/comments/i3o/snopes_said_it_was_false_my_research_is_complete/

Relevant meme by /u/JasonCarswell

A classic.

[–]Chipit 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah, I tried to ask people to provide references and provide more quotes, context, etc.

What I got back was, "I'm throwing this out there, people can pursue their own references if they want."

When I pointed out that nobody actually does that, I was informed that posters post material for their own satisfaction, not to be helpful or try to induce any meaningful change.

How do you answer that? I gave up.

[–]Nemacolin 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Snopes is unreliable? Please do go on. How do you judge it compared to your link to RT?

[–]Robin[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

[–]Nemacolin 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Saddit provides me links to all sorts of sites I never heard of. "Deep State,"you say?

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

RT is way more professional than Snopes. Have ever looked into the shitshow snopes team? But I suppose both of them duck and dodge and have their biases.

[–]Nemacolin 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

That is what they want you to believe. They want you to believe one source is about the same as another. One number is just as right as the next. Every news story is equally a lie. They want you to be confused and incapable of knowing the truth from a lie.

RT is professional. Well-paid with lots of fancy offices, their people get promotions and nifty titles. That is because they are paid by the Russian government to lie to you. Snopes is hardly professional at all they are begging for money. Telling the truth is just not as profitable as you might have thought.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

Would you rather be lied to by Russia or the US?

[–]Nemacolin 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

As I pointed out, you are confused. You are unable to tell the truth from fiction. You think everyone is lying to you.

You have fallen for their tricks.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Yawn. Says the guy sitting halfway across the world who's busy fighting fake wars for Zionists.

[–]Nemacolin 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

(I thought you were sitting halfway around the world.)

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Well there we go, we're seeing the world from new perspectives already.

Fuck Snopes, they duck dodge and wail on all of their debunkings. It's tabloid trash. Fuck their sponsors too.