how it works

After Palin's acceptance speech, which I watched live and then reviewed on youtube while writing the supermom post, I was irked and curious enough about her statements re Obama's policy positions that I put them on ameritocracy.com to see how they would get rated for accuracy & relevancy. In particular, the one that really got me was the statement that Obama didn't want to produce more energy to meet the nation's needs. That seemed so ludicrous that it almost didn't need to be considered, but then again, I thought, she was addressing people who were probably ready to believe it, and (like me) not able to spend the time trying to research what evidence might undergird that conclusion, or search out what Obama might have said to support or belie it.

So here are the results: "America needs more energy. Our opponent is against producing it." Accuracy: .6 out of 5; Relevancy: 2.8 out of 5. There are 15 votes so far, and one assessment contrasting Palin's statement with news sources quoting Obama on the offshore drilling included in his energy plan.

I've added Ameritocracy to the sidebar of the blog, and a widget featuring the quote of the day. Anyone can join, and add quotes, vote regarding a quote's accuracy and/or relevancy, and add responses challenging, supporting, assessing or giving context for a quote. Users build a reputation that reflects the community's consensus on their reliability, as do the sources.

Palin's a bit low right now at 2.6 out of 5.

The more people who join, the more informed the communal judgment is. Or you may be like me, rather unsure of your own ability to make an informed judgment about the reliability of political statements in most cases, and use the site by adding quotes and benefitting from the accumulated judgments of others. I expect I'll be relying on this site more and more, as the campaigns get underway.