I want to think about this both optimistically and pessimistically.
It's a great start and hope it leads to improvement, but this has the same psychological effect as reading a click-bait headline (fake news in itself) -- unless readers dive deeper. And just as with Wikipedia, the "fact check" sites could be gamed or contain inaccurate information themselves. Users never ask about the 'primary sources', and instead justread the headline for face-value.
My pessimistic expectation is that this inevitably will result in something like:
Chocolate is good for you. - Fact Check: Mostly True
Chocolate is bad for you. - Fact Check: Mostly True
Nutritional advice is rarely supported by strong science, so "mostly true" for both headlines is easily possible, given the weak evidence for each statement.
People are totally going to game this just like they game SEO. No doubt about it. Oh god, I hope "Fact Check Optimizer" doesn't become a real profession.
It's a great start and hope it leads to improvement, but this has the same psychological effect as reading a click-bait headline (fake news in itself) -- unless readers dive deeper. And just as with Wikipedia, the "fact check" sites could be gamed or contain inaccurate information themselves. Users never ask about the 'primary sources', and instead justread the headline for face-value.
My pessimistic expectation is that this inevitably will result in something like:
Chocolate is good for you. - Fact Check: Mostly True
Chocolate is bad for you. - Fact Check: Mostly True
Edit: Words