Ok it still nags me Where’s that edge between the “too ambiguous” verdict, and a less ambiguous but too biased conclusion, and a more or less solid objective conclusion…
I mean, yeah, the two Johns example is clearly “too ambiguous”.
But with the original Ethereum platform story you assumed that it was talking about the Ethereum main net and that was a bit of a biased decision, right?
(as proposed above: a hardcore Quorum or TRON developer could just as well assume by default that “Ethereum platform” is about the open source code base which they build upon and use daily, and not about the network which they might not use at all)
I understand that in these unclear situations the bias of the majority would win: if more TRON developers would vote for the claim using their bias, compared to main net users with their bias, the story would be listed as “true” and vice versa.
And that does not sound quite right, basically all these cases will get skewed towards the bias of the community (the “experts” etc) whose opinions distribution likely will be quite different from the distribution of opinions of “wider public” (and most of its countless subgroups).
In short, so far it looks like while most of the stories could be verified in a more or less objective manner, there will be a set of these unclear borderline cases where the objectivity will get replaced by the bias of the community.
And that would be an issue because it could alienate people who would stumble upon these contradictions (conclusions that are clearly wrong from their POV) by themselves, or worse… actually, let me stress this crucial point:
Parties who won’t be happy by what they read on TruStory about themselves will use these borderline cases to discredit TruStory
And even if you don’t worry about giving grounds to these expected attacks on the reputation of TS, still it would be great to have some more clearly defined procedures of determining when the conclusion is too biased (vs. objective enough), and/or tools to mark these borderline cases.
You know like wiki has the “citation needed” mark, it could be smth like “borderline case” or “see terms clarification” or some other mark with an attached clarification (“In this case we’re treating the ambiguous term Ethereum Platform as Ethereum public network; the conclusion might not be appropriate for other cases”). It would not solve the problem 100% but it’s better than nothing imho.