Fabrice Florin starts talking about Newstrust.net. John McManus introduces himself, talking about gradethenews.org. Peter Phillips talks about Project Censored and Philip Meyer questions whether or not we need to measure quality, or whether or not market forces will be sufficient. That said, can measuring quality help the market forces?

There is a long discussion about how NewsTrust works, how well it has worked etc. As we go to the panel, the first objection is that Philip questions the motivation for people to evaluate the news. It is mind numbing stuff, so why would people do that? That said, he goes on to quote Franklin’s comment about voting for the constitution, not because he thinks it is the best, but because he’s not sure if there is anything better.

Peter talks about the issue of classifying people as liberal, moderate or conservative. The discussion on the IRC is that politics really seems to be non-orthagonal.

It seems as if Political Compass rankings might be useful.

Peter also talks about the issue of what is not being covered. It is pointed out that members can submit stories to be ranked. It would seem as if Project Censored stories would be good stories to be listed and rated.

John talks a bit about how this could be useful for teaching media criticism. He goes on to talk about how this would be very useful at the local level, which comes back to Philips concern about what will bring enough volunteers.

Related to this is if stories can be reviewed quickly enough to draw people to the site.

And of course, there is the issue of whether or not this can be gamed.