RE: Publish and Evaluate Openly - PEvO science open beta officially launched!
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
That flip side, where papers can be retracted when there is ideological opposition, was foremost in my mind when reading this! The accreditation algorithm can be tuned and weighted by user preference, or it should be. It is useful for those who do not understand a subject to have someone who does to review content in a way that , if you were inclined to understand it, you could learn.
Anonymous contributions could theoretically be submitted by a dedicated account. The reputation of that account would be subject to flux, though. A solution would be for that account to distribute the submissions to sub-accounts according to its own confidence. Only the reputation of the sub-account would be at stake.
We already do this with publications. If you say that the NYT has a history of quoting anonymous sources that turn out to be wrong then you have assessed their reputation. This will weigh on those who respect your judgement for the next time they include an anonymous source. The sub-account analog is found when people state their confidence in individual journalists.
Reputation of fact checkers, medical 'experts', and authorities has proven to be weaponized and fake news. Unless someone you trust is the source of an assessment of reputation, it's not just worthless. It's an active weapon used constantly against us.
Most people don't verify, DYOR, and know the falsity of propaganda outlets, because the proofs they are misleading us isn't front page news. The NY Slimes is a perfect example of this, being essentially an outlet for CIA disinformation and propaganda. Reputation is a weapon. Absent a true network of trust, of people we personally know and trust that do verify facts and assess the veracity of publishers, it can only do harm, because lying spooks and larcenous tyrants continually spew disinformation in order to enslave us, and they control accreditation and reputation in the media they own, which is all corporate media (particularly the Journals like Cell, Nature, and NEJM that are utterly prostituted to their funders), and much of 'alternative' media, like Luke Rudkowski, Alex Jones, and Tim Pool, whom are entirely controlled opposition to the official narrative. Outfits like ResearchGate, TrialSiteNews, Redaction Watch, and others that have traditionally sidestepped the Journals to prevent censorship have lately been increasingly captured, prevented publishing, and have retracted contrarian reports, as well.
You know that is the truth.
Edit: please re-read the comment you reply to above, as edited to provide more information regarding the abuse of reputation and accreditation.