This is interesting, but I'd love to see a different take on the idea of binary "this is wrong" and "this is right".
Take [1] for example, it lists the source as [2]. However, the source as claimed in [2] is reported as:
"Department of Health and Human Services confirmed".
You might not want to turn it into a "wikipedia", but it would be nice to offer the following:
1) Wrong reports and right reports - a list of sources that suggest whether the claim is factually sound or not (this could be news reports like CNN). You can pull together many sources in a given topic to support a claim
2) "Authority sources", for example, DoJ or other official information distributors that are claimed in an article.
3) "Linked news sources" - These days, many news sources are rehashes of rehashes, sometimes there are 4/5 chains before you get to the "authority" source (reported by the Verge which was detailed by Tech Crunch which was first outlined by AReallyCoolBlog). It would be nice to have a "trail" of where the news/source/information came from, and how many links there are in the chain.
Thank you very much for taking the time to provide detailed feedback.
1) Fake quotes do concern me, but for now I've settled on requiring a single reputable source, preferably the primary source (so in your example the DoH press release, if available, would actually be a better source). I've also provided a 'Report quote' button to let users flag fake quotes. I am planning to allow users to validate and/or post additional sources for quotes.
2) I've considered adopting a whitelist approach, but given I can't possibly know all the relevant sources for all the topics which can be covered, I'm just manually accepting quotes for now (the 'does it look credible to me?' test). Things might get even more interesting if/once I start getting quotes/sources on a topic I know nothing about or even in a language I don't understand.
3) Tracking down the primary source is definitely an issue I've already run into when trying to post the first quotes. Ideally, I would like to only accept 'primary sources', even though I know it takes extra work to provide them. Maybe implementing what you suggest in 1) would help with that.
Another feature I'd really like to implement is to automatically archive (on the Internet archive's Wayback machine) the source once I validate it, so that quotes don't lose their sources over time.
Take [1] for example, it lists the source as [2]. However, the source as claimed in [2] is reported as:
"Department of Health and Human Services confirmed".
You might not want to turn it into a "wikipedia", but it would be nice to offer the following:
1) Wrong reports and right reports - a list of sources that suggest whether the claim is factually sound or not (this could be news reports like CNN). You can pull together many sources in a given topic to support a claim
2) "Authority sources", for example, DoJ or other official information distributors that are claimed in an article.
3) "Linked news sources" - These days, many news sources are rehashes of rehashes, sometimes there are 4/5 chains before you get to the "authority" source (reported by the Verge which was detailed by Tech Crunch which was first outlined by AReallyCoolBlog). It would be nice to have a "trail" of where the news/source/information came from, and how many links there are in the chain.
[1]: https://ontherecord.live/17
[2]: https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/31/politics/drive-thru-coron...