Re: Twitter Birdwatch: user annotation for credibility, truth, etc.

I think the comparison to Reddit is also interesting:

https://twitter.com/kevinroose/status/1353824851861987328

The commenters on that thread rightly point out that Reddit's debatable 
success with community moderation has been a result of them having well 
delimited communities with designated moderators.

Twitter certainly has many communities within it, but those communities 
are much more fluid, and there is little transparency about who can and 
does moderate them.

It will be interesting to watch Birdwatch to see what happens. Did 
anyone get approved yet?

//Ed

On 1/26/21 1:08 AM, Jacky Alcine wrote:
> That's what people are thinking. But there's hesitation since Wikipedia's goal is sharing knowledge and Twitter is still driven by private interest.
>
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021, at 21:57, Sherif Hanna wrote:
>> Seems like Twitter is taking a Wikipedia-like approach with
>> community-based moderation?
>>
>>
>> Sherif Hanna | VP of R&D
>> Recent Press:  NBC News <https://nbcnews.to/35hyo0U>  |  Fast Company
>> <https://bit.ly/349L9LC>  |  WIRED <https://bit.ly/35d2wKP>  |  CNET
>> <https://cnet.co/3dNplc8>  |  Axios <https://bit.ly/3lZxkpi>  |
>> Protocol <https://bit.ly/356rYl6>  |  Android Central
>> <https://bit.ly/3ke4bpZ>  |  Android Police <https://bit.ly/35d8Din>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 9:40 PM Tom Jones <thomasclinganjones@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> sorry - i misspoke.
>>> let's try again.
>>> 1. some statement is made on an ethical web site.
>>> 2. the statement is challenged by whatever means that site allows.
>>> 3. the statement is removed until the poster gets a link that supports it. (note i did not say trusted this time.)
>>> 4.The statement is reposted with the link.
>>> 5. now anyone that sees the statement can make their own evaluation as to the trustworthiness of the link.
>>>
>>> Peace ..tom
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 8:48 PM Jacky Alcine <yo@jacky.wtf> wrote:
>>>> Sadly trusted is subjective because, as history has shown, people will use "data" to their own means. See eugenics and scientific racism (both proven false and still upheld as truth by a lot of people).
>>>>
>>>> So no, it won't since this is a place that demands validation and results and it's harder to be a bigot in 2021 (thankfully or I'd be dead thanks to racism and xenophobia).
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021, at 20:28, Tom Jones wrote:
>>>>> this will wind up as a fight between the lablers of the left and the right.
>>>>> would it not be better to ask users to post to a trusted source instead?
>>>>> Peace ..tom
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 5:38 PM Bob Wyman <bob@wyman.us> wrote:
>>>>>> Today, Twitter launched Birdwatch <https://twitter.github.io/birdwatch/> a system which, I think, should be relevant to the work of this group:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Birdwatch allows people to identify information in Tweets they believe is misleading and write notes that provide informative context. We believe this approach has the potential to respond quickly when misleading information spreads, adding context that people trust and find valuable. Eventually we aim to make notes visible directly on Tweets for the global Twitter audience, when there is consensus from a broad and diverse set of contributors." Keith Coleman, Twitter Vice President of Product in "Introducing Birdwatch, a community-based approach to misinformation <https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/product/2021/introducing-birdwatch-a-community-based-approach-to-misinformation.html>."
>>>>>> Has anyone had a chance to review Birdwatch? What do you think?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Useful links:
>>>>>>   * Birdwatch Guide on GitHub <https://twitter.github.io/birdwatch/>
>>>>>>   * Birdwatch on Twitter <https://twitter.com/i/birdwatch> (signup to trial, see recent annotated tweets, etc.)
>>>>>>   * Birdwatch Announcement <https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/product/2021/introducing-birdwatch-a-community-based-approach-to-misinformation.html>
>>>>>>   bob wyman
>>>>>>
>
>