Spaces:
Running
"Fact Checker" is misleading as it isn't one
This space is titled "Fact Checker", however it is instead more of a tool to check how a statement is articulated or presented (extension to grammar checking rather than substantive fact), the fact this might come up when someone searches "fact check" on seems problematic.
Firstly fact checking, requires having high quality information on a topic and come to a conclusion based on current high quality evidence & consensus among experts in the receptive area's, we also have bias checking, source integrity & reliability checking, which can be used to complement each other. This tool is not capable of this in any way.
It looks at the content and does "plausability" checks, based on a biased view on how arguments may be presented to derive a FAKE or CORRECT outcome, its also limited by design as many issues/statements are far more nuanced and don't boil down to a TRUE/FALSE outcome.
To demonstrate this i took the olde Dr Mike question's he used to trip up gemini to adapt for this purpose.
neck pain is one of the most commonly reported symptoms among those with cervical cancer.
The "fact checker" thinks i mean cancer of the cervix, but you can have cancer in your cervical spine too. If someone put in a statement which had nuance to it or any duel meaning(or anything else i haven't considered), these systems would not be helpful and may even be harmful if relied on too much.
I put that exact prompt into this space (Saty01/FactChecker) and got this:
Therefore, you should clarify by this spaces title, its more of a "statement analyser", not really providing any substance to the facts, but to the reliability of the formulation of the statement, for example the statement i gave can be misleading, so instead of "%44 confidence it's FAKE" it can say "BADLY REASONED" or whatever appropriate word you want to use to evaluate the quality of the formulation of an argument or statement.