anchor.diff:      </div>
     </aside>
   
  -  <p>Once you created a Factlink on a website, other people with the browser extension could see it. It didn’t modify the website directly, as that’s not possible, but it altered how the website is rendered using the browser extension. Thus we called Factlink “a layer over the web”.</p>
  +  <p>Once you created a Factlink on a website, other people with the browser extension could see it. It didn’t modify the website directly, as that’s generally not possible, but it altered how the website is rendered using the browser extension.</p>
   
     <p>You could then post the Factlink to a channel, such as “Brain development”. Others who subscribed to that channel, such as experts or interested people, would see the Factlink on their activity feed. They could then give their opinion, add sources, and comment on the Factlink.</p>
   
  
positive.code:     </div>
    </aside>
  
    <p>What if someone adds nonsense <span class="blog-fact-graph-supporting"><i class="icon-plus-circled"></i> supporting evidence</span>, <span class="blog-fact-graph-f4">F4</span>: <span class="blog-fact-graph-factlink blog-fact-graph-f4">“The sky is blue.”</span> Someone can do this to falsely increase or decrease credibility of <span class="blog-fact-graph-f1">F1</span>, especially if <span class="blog-fact-graph-f4">F4</span> itself is <span class="blog-fact-graph-agree">very credible</span>. We could allow users to flag such invalid arguments, and have them removed by a moderator, or if enough people flag it.</p>
  
    <p>But it might also be that evidence that looks like nonsense, is in fact relevant. It might just be that you don’t understand the subject matter well enough, or that it needs further explaining. Relevance isn’t binary &mdash; either relevant or irrelevant &mdash; but it’s a scale. We are not just interested in the credibility of Factlinks, but also in the credibility of relations between Factlinks.</p>
  
    <p>In the same way you can vote on the credibility of Factlinks, you can vote on the credibility of the relations between Factlinks, evidence. In an attempt to avoid confusion, we call this voting on relevance. You can <span class="blog-fact-graph-agree">agree</span> or <span class="blog-fact-graph-disagree">disagree</span> that evidence is relevant.</p>
  
    <aside class="blog-aside">
      <div class="blog-aside-inner">
  
negative.code: 
    <p>The key idea of our credibility calculation was evidence. You could add Factlinks as evidence for another Factlink. This evidence could be either supporting or weakening. If the <span class="blog-fact-graph-supporting"><i class="icon-plus-circled"></i> supporting Factlink</span> was likely to be <span class="blog-fact-graph-agree">true</span>, then the Factlink it supported was also more likely to be <span class="blog-fact-graph-agree">true</span>. If a <span class="blog-fact-graph-weakening"><i class="icon-minus-circled"></i> weakening Factlink</span> was likely to be <span class="blog-fact-graph-agree">true</span>, then the Factlink it weakened was more likely to be <span class="blog-fact-graph-disagree">false</span>. We called this network of evidence the “Fact Graph”.</p>
  
    <p>An example. <span class="blog-fact-graph-f1">Factlink 1 (F1)</span> is: <span class="blog-fact-graph-factlink blog-fact-graph-f1">“Working from home is more productive than working in an office.”</span> You could find a website talking about personal experience, and annotate <span class="blog-fact-graph-f2">F2</span>: <span class="blog-fact-graph-factlink blog-fact-graph-f2">“I’m much happier working from home, so I work harder.”</span> You can then add <span class="blog-fact-graph-f2">F2</span> as <span class="blog-fact-graph-supporting"><i class="icon-plus-circled"></i> supporting evidence</span> to <span class="blog-fact-graph-f1">F1</span>. If it turns out that <span class="blog-fact-graph-f2">F2</span> is <span class="blog-fact-graph-agree">very credible</span> &mdash; many people voted that they agree, or it gets a lot of supporting evidence &mdash; then in turn <span class="blog-fact-graph-f1">F1</span> will also become <span class="blog-fact-graph-agree">more credible</span>. The green part of the Factwheel of <span class="blog-fact-graph-f1">F1</span> will become bigger.</p>
  
    <p>Say you find a counter argument on the web, which you annotate. <span class="blog-fact-graph-f3">F3</span>: <span class="blog-fact-graph-factlink blog-fact-graph-f3">“In conclusion, in 89% of the cases we have looked at, working in the office was most productive.”</span> This one might be added as <span class="blog-fact-graph-weakening"><i class="icon-minus-circled"></i> weakening evidence</span> to <span class="blog-fact-graph-f1">F1</span>. If it turns out <span class="blog-fact-graph-f3">F3</span> is <span class="blog-fact-graph-agree">credible</span>, then <span class="blog-fact-graph-f1">F1</span> becomes <span class="blog-fact-graph-disagree">less credible</span>. The red part of the Factwheel of <span class="blog-fact-graph-f1">F1</span> will become bigger.</p>
  
  