[duwease]

I want to bring a note of positivity here -- while most comments seem to be poking holes in the concept, all also seem to acknowledge the need for such a service to be successful.

This is a domain that I've also put a lot of thought into over the years, so I hope something succeeds. And some things do. Keep in mind that Wikipedia caught a lot of flak for being unreliable or impossible at first, but nowadays they have a robust editorial process for contentious subjects that I'd consider the gold standard for any such practical applications on the internet.

[gambler]

>while most comments seem to be poking holes in the concept, all also seem to acknowledge the need for such a service to be successful.

Speaking plainly: anyone who believes you can get better news through some kind of external meta-review process is a fool. Probably a fool who also thinks the review process should validate journalists that share their political biases, because that's what it's all about these days.

You cannot test quality into the product. News sources are supposed to cross-validate each other in the first place. Clearly, that have stopped working some time ago.

The only thing that can save news now is an overhaul of its financing and discovery models.

>Wikipedia caught a lot of flak for being unreliable or impossible at first, but nowadays they have a robust editorial process for contentious subjects

Hah.