Misplaced Pages

Climate Feedback: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:20, 2 April 2020 editJzG (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers155,078 edits These belong in science feedback - climate feedback does not, as far as I can see, make prnonuncements onm abortion, for example.← Previous edit Revision as of 17:52, 2 April 2020 edit undoYae4 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,590 edits →top: New section for non-history info, delete false statement on review frequency; see talkTag: Visual editNext edit →
Line 13: Line 13:


Vincent partnered with the non-profit Hypothes.is, who created a free Internet browser plug-in that allows users to make sentence-level comments on web pages, to create an evaluation of content. Climate Feedback, an application of the Hypothes.is platform to climate science communication, allows active climate scientists to add comments.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://news.mit.edu/2014/improving-media-coverage-climate-science-1202|title=Improving media coverage of climate science|last=Wanucha|first=Genevieve|date=December 2, 2014|website=MIT News, Oceans at MIT|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=2020-04-02}}</ref> Vincent partnered with the non-profit Hypothes.is, who created a free Internet browser plug-in that allows users to make sentence-level comments on web pages, to create an evaluation of content. Climate Feedback, an application of the Hypothes.is platform to climate science communication, allows active climate scientists to add comments.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://news.mit.edu/2014/improving-media-coverage-climate-science-1202|title=Improving media coverage of climate science|last=Wanucha|first=Genevieve|date=December 2, 2014|website=MIT News, Oceans at MIT|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=2020-04-02}}</ref>

== Process ==
Typically, a story will be reviewed by five or six scientists, but on one story, there were 17 reviewers.<ref name=":1" /> According to Climate Feedback, each reviewer has to hold a PhD in a relevant discipline, and have at least one published article on climate science or climate change impacts in a top-tier ] ] within the last three years.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://climatefeedback.org/About/|title=About us - Climate Feedback|date=2015-05-01|work=Climate Feedback|access-date=2018-12-03|language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://climatefeedback.org/for-scientists/|title=Scientists, get onboard!|date=2015-05-12|website=Climate Feedback|language=en-US|access-date=2020-01-21}}</ref> However, summaries are written by an editor rather than by a reviewer.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://climatefeedback.org/process|title=Process – How Climate Feedback works|website=Climate Feedback|language=en-US|access-date=2020-02-22}}</ref>


== History == == History ==
Line 19: Line 22:
In 2016, Climate Feedback, a scientist-led effort to “peer review” climate journalism, raised about $30,000 with&nbsp; Indigogo crowdfunding, which bolstered one of the efforts to conduct fact-checking via web annotation. Others like PolitiFact have also been experimenting with annotation methods for politicians’ posts on the blogging platform Medium, using a $140,000 grant from the Knight Foundation.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2016/annotation-might-be-the-future-of-fact-checking/|title=Annotation might be the future of fact-checking|last=Wilner|first=Tamar|date=May 25, 2016|website=Poynter|language=en-US|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=2020-01-18}}</ref> In 2016, Climate Feedback, a scientist-led effort to “peer review” climate journalism, raised about $30,000 with&nbsp; Indigogo crowdfunding, which bolstered one of the efforts to conduct fact-checking via web annotation. Others like PolitiFact have also been experimenting with annotation methods for politicians’ posts on the blogging platform Medium, using a $140,000 grant from the Knight Foundation.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2016/annotation-might-be-the-future-of-fact-checking/|title=Annotation might be the future of fact-checking|last=Wilner|first=Tamar|date=May 25, 2016|website=Poynter|language=en-US|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=2020-01-18}}</ref>


In 2017, climate blogger Dana Nuccitelli at The Guardian, in an article on climate bloggers, mentioned that Climate Feedback "is a highly respected and influential resource."<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/nov/29/new-study-uncovers-the-keystone-domino-strategy-of-climate-denial|title=New study uncovers the 'keystone domino' strategy of climate denial|last=Nuccitelli|first=Dana|date=November 29, 2017|website=theguardian.com|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=January 20, 2020}}</ref> The website fact-checks one or two stories per week.<ref name=":1" /> Typically, a story will be reviewed by five or six scientists, but on one story, there were 17 reviewers.<ref name=":1" /> According to Climate Feedback, each reviewer has to hold a PhD in a relevant discipline, and have at least one published article on climate science or climate change impacts in a top-tier ] ] within the last three years.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://climatefeedback.org/About/|title=About us - Climate Feedback|date=2015-05-01|work=Climate Feedback|access-date=2018-12-03|language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://climatefeedback.org/for-scientists/|title=Scientists, get onboard!|date=2015-05-12|website=Climate Feedback|language=en-US|access-date=2020-01-21}}</ref> However, summaries are written by an editor rather than by a reviewer.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://climatefeedback.org/process|title=Process – How Climate Feedback works|website=Climate Feedback|language=en-US|access-date=2020-02-22}}</ref> The website has identified errors in content published by outlets, such as ], '']'', '']'' and '']'' magazine.<ref name=":2" /><ref name=":3" /> The website is included in the database of global fact-checking sites by the Reporters’ Lab at ].<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://reporterslab.org/fact-checking-triples-over-four-years/|title=Fact-checking triples over four years - Duke Reporters' Lab|date=2018-02-22|work=Duke Reporters' Lab|access-date=2018-12-03|language=en-US}}</ref> In 2017, climate blogger Dana Nuccitelli at The Guardian, in an article on climate bloggers, mentioned that Climate Feedback "is a highly respected and influential resource."<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/nov/29/new-study-uncovers-the-keystone-domino-strategy-of-climate-denial|title=New study uncovers the 'keystone domino' strategy of climate denial|last=Nuccitelli|first=Dana|date=November 29, 2017|website=theguardian.com|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=January 20, 2020}}</ref>

The website has identified errors in content published by outlets, such as ], '']'', '']'' and '']'' magazine.<ref name=":2" /><ref name=":3" /> The website is included in the database of global fact-checking sites by the Reporters’ Lab at ].<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://reporterslab.org/fact-checking-triples-over-four-years/|title=Fact-checking triples over four years - Duke Reporters' Lab|date=2018-02-22|work=Duke Reporters' Lab|access-date=2018-12-03|language=en-US}}</ref>


As a project of the Science Feedback non-profit organization, Climate Feedback reviews are used in ]'s fact-checking partnership to identify false news and show them lower in ].<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.axios.com/facebook-fact-checking-partners-poynter-087404bc-42f0-40c8-b570-6a45a1d6bd63.html|title=Facebook adds 2 new fact-checking partners|date=2019-04-17|work=Axios|language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.facebook.com/help/publisher/182222309230722|title=Fact-Checking on Facebook: What Publishers Should Know|website=Facebook|language=en|access-date=2019-04-19}}</ref> As a project of the Science Feedback non-profit organization, Climate Feedback reviews are used in ]'s fact-checking partnership to identify false news and show them lower in ].<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.axios.com/facebook-fact-checking-partners-poynter-087404bc-42f0-40c8-b570-6a45a1d6bd63.html|title=Facebook adds 2 new fact-checking partners|date=2019-04-17|work=Axios|language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.facebook.com/help/publisher/182222309230722|title=Fact-Checking on Facebook: What Publishers Should Know|website=Facebook|language=en|access-date=2019-04-19}}</ref>

Revision as of 17:52, 2 April 2020

This article is about the fact-checking website. For climate change feedback, see Global warming § Climate change feedback. Fact-checking website for climate change
Climate Feedback
Type of siteFact-checking website
OwnerScience Feedback
URLclimatefeedback.org
Current statusActive

Climate Feedback is one of three websites under the Science Feedback umbrella that fact-checks media coverage of climate change. Science Feedback is a non-profit organization registered in France. The website asks climate scientists in relevant fields to assess the credibility and accuracy of media stories related to climate change. The website published its first review in 2015. The website was founded by Emmanuel Vincent, who has a PhD in Oceanography & Climate from Université Pierre et Marie Curie.

Vincent partnered with the non-profit Hypothes.is, who created a free Internet browser plug-in that allows users to make sentence-level comments on web pages, to create an evaluation of content. Climate Feedback, an application of the Hypothes.is platform to climate science communication, allows active climate scientists to add comments.

Process

Typically, a story will be reviewed by five or six scientists, but on one story, there were 17 reviewers. According to Climate Feedback, each reviewer has to hold a PhD in a relevant discipline, and have at least one published article on climate science or climate change impacts in a top-tier peer-reviewed scientific journal within the last three years. However, summaries are written by an editor rather than by a reviewer.

History

The website published its first review in 2015. The website was founded by Emmanuel Vincent, who has a PhD in Oceanography & Climate from Université Pierre et Marie Curie.

In 2016, Climate Feedback, a scientist-led effort to “peer review” climate journalism, raised about $30,000 with  Indigogo crowdfunding, which bolstered one of the efforts to conduct fact-checking via web annotation. Others like PolitiFact have also been experimenting with annotation methods for politicians’ posts on the blogging platform Medium, using a $140,000 grant from the Knight Foundation.

In 2017, climate blogger Dana Nuccitelli at The Guardian, in an article on climate bloggers, mentioned that Climate Feedback "is a highly respected and influential resource."

The website has identified errors in content published by outlets, such as Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, The Mail on Sunday and New York magazine. The website is included in the database of global fact-checking sites by the Reporters’ Lab at Duke University.

As a project of the Science Feedback non-profit organization, Climate Feedback reviews are used in Facebook's fact-checking partnership to identify false news and show them lower in News Feed.

See also

References

  1. ^ "At Climate Feedback, scientists encourage better science reporting. But who is listening?". Columbia Journalism Review. Retrieved 2018-12-03.
  2. Uzunoğlu, Sarphan (June 2019). "Science Feedback, IFCN Code of Principles". ifcncodeofprinciples.poynter.org. Retrieved 2020-04-02.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  3. ^ "Why climate change is the easiest news to fake". Axios. Retrieved 2018-12-03.
  4. ^ "This fact-checker got several news outlets to correct a false story about a mini-Ice Age". Poynter Institute. Retrieved 2018-12-03.
  5. Wanucha, Genevieve (December 2, 2014). "Improving media coverage of climate science". MIT News, Oceans at MIT. Retrieved 2020-04-02.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  6. "About us - Climate Feedback". Climate Feedback. 2015-05-01. Retrieved 2018-12-03.
  7. "Scientists, get onboard!". Climate Feedback. 2015-05-12. Retrieved 2020-01-21.
  8. "Process – How Climate Feedback works". Climate Feedback. Retrieved 2020-02-22.
  9. Wilner, Tamar (May 25, 2016). "Annotation might be the future of fact-checking". Poynter. Retrieved 2020-01-18.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  10. Nuccitelli, Dana (November 29, 2017). "New study uncovers the 'keystone domino' strategy of climate denial". theguardian.com. Retrieved January 20, 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  11. "Fact-checking triples over four years - Duke Reporters' Lab". Duke Reporters' Lab. 2018-02-22. Retrieved 2018-12-03.
  12. "Facebook adds 2 new fact-checking partners". Axios. 2019-04-17.
  13. "Fact-Checking on Facebook: What Publishers Should Know". Facebook. Retrieved 2019-04-19.

External links

Category: