4
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 632:
Line 632: + + + + + + + + +
User talk:Ed Poor (view source)
Revision as of 15:31, September 16, 2012
, 15:31, September 16, 2012Intro to WeCheck
::I took care of it. --[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 13:21, 5 September 2012 (EDT)
::I took care of it. --[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 13:21, 5 September 2012 (EDT)
:::Thanks to both of you! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 13:32, 5 September 2012 (EDT)
:::Thanks to both of you! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 13:32, 5 September 2012 (EDT)
== WeCheck ==
Wow I'm very impressed with your contributions to this site and to Wikipedia. I hope you don't mind me contacting you through here. I thought you may be interested in WeCheck [http://wecheck.org], a fact-check wiki I set up a few days ago. As you know, recently, in an effort to counter media bias there has been a huge move to 'fact check' every political claim. But how can we really trust the fact checkers when they are the same journalists who are part of the problem? The solution is to cut out the midddle man and give tools to let the people so they can do the fact checking themselves.
WeCheck in an independent non-partisan system that uses Wikipedia-like collaborative editing to help contributors with varied political views work together to fact check speeches and political commentary.
It works by allowing users to tags and link text to create Fact Check pages. In addition to basic tags such as [[TRUE]], [[FALSE]] and in between we also have 40 other tags like [[STRAW MAN]], [[CIRCULAR]], [[AD HOMINEM]], [[CORRELATION]], [[MORAL EQUIVALENCE]], [[NAZI]], [[RACE CARD]] etc. which contributors can use to educate other reader to the writer's techniques/manipulations.
Given your knowledge of the growth of Wikipedia I'd be very interested in any advice you have to administer the site as it grows. All the best! [[User:sparkzilla]]