How will TruStory's UI handle story's where the context matters?


In the past, I’ve looked at something like politifact to quickly see whether something is true or false. Politifact has a scale to say something like this story is half true or pants on fire false, which may lead me to read the rest of the story to see what’s true and what’s not.

I just recently wrote a story in which would look like this if you didn’t read the body


Claim : Bitcoin transactions are not reversible

Verdict : False

I justified my verdict based on the fact that one could reverse their own transactions if they controlled more than 50% of the computers mining bitcoin. Of course, this also means no Bitcoin transactions will be reversed until this scenario happens.

As a result, I could definitely see someone quickly look at the claim and verdict and assume Bitcoin transactions are reversed occasionally like credit card transactions. Is it best to try to firmly label a story’s verdict as false or to add limited context to the verdict section itself as some people have been doing in their TruStory’s?

I’m thinking the second scenario would make more sense. Maybe their could be a character limit for the verdict section and the user would be required to start the verdict with true or false?


@matt this is why we have the concept of “Flagging” on TruStory. Stories can be flagged for various reasons, including for being too ambiguous. If we’re going to make claims, let’s add the necessary detail to it to avoid this type of confusion in the first place. For example, in this case, the claim can be "Assuming an honest majority has control over the network hash power, Bitcoin transactions are not reversible"