<story><title>WikiTribune – Evidence-based journalism</title><url>https://www.wikitribune.com</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>jim-jim-jim</author><text>The article in the dupe thread suggested that this would combat &amp;quot;fake news,&amp;quot; but I dunno about that. I get the impression that people who digest biased&amp;#x2F;questionable sources do it to express tribal affiliation more than some genuine need to be informed. Hell, many people share articles without even reading them; they&amp;#x27;re primarily concerned with what the headline in their feed says about their character rather than the world at large. I&amp;#x27;m not sure if having (another) &amp;quot;evidence based&amp;quot; outlet is going to be of any use to your cranky uncle.&lt;p&gt;I think the real promise lies in Wikitribune potentially going toe-to-toe with &amp;quot;real news&amp;quot; like CNN or the Washington Post. These outlets also don&amp;#x27;t always get the facts straight and can&amp;#x27;t be said to have a diehard following. If a superior option presents itself, readers will follow.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>michaelbuckbee</author><text>I tried to track down some of the crazy news stories that were being shared broadly on Facebook and much of what I found was that they were algorithmically generated titles slapped onto the same URL and the actual &amp;quot;story&amp;quot; was copied bits from other semi-related stories.&lt;p&gt;You&amp;#x27;d find really salacious headlines: &amp;quot;Hillary Clinton Murder Victim Speaks&amp;quot; and the actual story would be about her fundraising.&lt;p&gt;They were arbitraging the cost of buying a FB ad (to drive traffic and start the viral loop) against how many ads they could run on the site.</text></comment>
<story><title>WikiTribune – Evidence-based journalism</title><url>https://www.wikitribune.com</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>jim-jim-jim</author><text>The article in the dupe thread suggested that this would combat &amp;quot;fake news,&amp;quot; but I dunno about that. I get the impression that people who digest biased&amp;#x2F;questionable sources do it to express tribal affiliation more than some genuine need to be informed. Hell, many people share articles without even reading them; they&amp;#x27;re primarily concerned with what the headline in their feed says about their character rather than the world at large. I&amp;#x27;m not sure if having (another) &amp;quot;evidence based&amp;quot; outlet is going to be of any use to your cranky uncle.&lt;p&gt;I think the real promise lies in Wikitribune potentially going toe-to-toe with &amp;quot;real news&amp;quot; like CNN or the Washington Post. These outlets also don&amp;#x27;t always get the facts straight and can&amp;#x27;t be said to have a diehard following. If a superior option presents itself, readers will follow.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>tmalsburg2</author><text>Yeah, some people may not care about it and go on to consume questionable but ideological aligned news.  However, this is for the people who do care about reliable and transparent news.  For these people Wikitribune promises to do a great deal to combat fake news because at this time all they can do it to choose between different flavors of fake news.</text></comment>