How Wikipedia Is Cultivating an Army of Fact Checkers to Battle Fake News [PSMag.com]

Jane Stevens posted:

I think it's relevant in this way, Russell:  Many people who experienced childhood adversity grew up in families where parents or caregivers often told them that what they experienced (sexual abuse, physical abuse, etc.) didn’t really happen to them, and they are forced to live in an unreality of someone else’s lies, often for years.

So, when people in authority purposely say that things are white when they are red -- and everyone in the whole world can see that they're red because of photos or verifiable data -- that can be triggering and, at the very least, so confusing that people don't know how to respond.

Those people in authority can range from people in work situations (a good example is Enron, which was collapsing in many ways, including its stock, while its president was saying "buy stock"), as well as sector-based (cigarette companies lying about the results of their own science that corroborated research that demonstrated that smoking causes lung cancer and heart disease) and government.

So, having places that are independent and whose mission is to provide verifiable information and point out the disinformation is valuable in a world where most people still have ACEs.

Thanks, Jane.

Intellectually, this seems to be "drawing a bit of a long bow", but who says we should operate intellectually??  It must be almost like torture for some over there. Down Under we don't get to see much of the more explosive commentary, except for snippets on YouTube, but with a President boasting about "grabbing" etc etc ... sheesh!

I think it's relevant in this way, Russell:  Many people who experienced childhood adversity grew up in families where parents or caregivers often told them that what they experienced (sexual abuse, physical abuse, etc.) didn’t really happen to them, and they are forced to live in an unreality of someone else’s lies, often for years.

So, when people in authority purposely say that things are white when they are red -- and everyone in the whole world can see that they're red because of photos or verifiable data -- that can be triggering and, at the very least, so confusing that people don't know how to respond.

Those people in authority can range from people in work situations (a good example is Enron, which was collapsing in many ways, including its stock, while its president was saying "buy stock"), as well as sector-based (cigarette companies lying about the results of their own science that corroborated research that demonstrated that smoking causes lung cancer and heart disease) and government.

So, having places that are independent and whose mission is to provide verifiable information and point out the disinformation is valuable in a world where most people still have ACEs.

As important as this might be to some, would someone please explain to me it's more direct relevance? Historically isn't it more relevant to the US political situation? Not that I doubt many have used various strategies to obfuscate issues relating to ACEs - - see my latest Q to the community - - obvious attempt to" bamboozle 'em with "science" "  except that some know the science better than they do - - something I think we all have to do. So...