Have had a few pet projects in the past around RSS aggregation/news reading, which could fact-check the sources/article while reading, also determining the biases from the grammar and linguistic patterns used by the journalist for the article. Same could be applied to comments.

Wonder if such a feature had value for a reader app for Lemmy? I feel a definitive score is toxic. But, if it were to simply display the variables to look out for it can help make a objective decision yourself?

Another application of this, is also pulling just the objective statements in the articles for faster reading.

Edit: More explained in this comment: https://lemmy.world/comment/1524807

  • pexavc@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
    1·
    1 year ago

    Slowly removing passion. Its interesting seeing how things I would feel would increase passion (simply because it creates/saves more time), may have the complete opposite effect and thus going against the whole intention. I ignore this side a lot of the time.

      • pexavc@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
        1·
        1 year ago

        Passion as in, spending the time to look into the thoughts of the paper and spending the time to observe each student’s work fairly to help the student improve on their writing. Maybe the plagiarism checker is wrong about something, and makes you skip reading through that section. But, infact the student may have laid out some interesting thoughts that should have received positive reinforcement.

        Our overall discussion reminded me of this piece by Aaron Swartz aswell, thought it would be nice read to suggest: http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/anders, the specific piece is called “Confront reality”

        Edit: or the whole series is quite good http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/rawnerve

        Edit2: some wording

        • FinalBoy1975@lemmy.worldEnglish
          21·
          1 year ago

          OK, so you’re looking for a way to figure out punditry, what the pundits say that is fact and that is just their opinion. I think that this type of goal is entertaining. What you’re looking for is to create software that singles out journalists (they are usually the pundits). It looks easy watching TV, it’s harder to with software. But you’re right in that regard. Journalists aren’t what they used to be. They are free to have an opinion and they are viewed as fact reporters. It’s problematic. Humans are now better at figuring that out than AI. But if you can figure it out, that’s great.