In the preceding year, Elon Musk garnered considerable public interest through his declaration of a community-driven methodology for addressing the issue of fabricated news.

“I intend to establish a platform where individuals can evaluate the fundamental veracity of any given article and monitor the evolving credibility metrics for every journalist, editor, and publication. The working title I’m considering is Pravda…” he articulated.

However, this concept extends beyond mere contemplation. Publicly accessible documentation indicates that the entity known as Pravda was officially established in Delaware on October 19, 2017. At that time, Musk indicated his intention to dedicate his efforts to this venture once the immediate challenges at Tesla were resolved.

As other commentators have observed, systems relying solely on popularity metrics are not inherently the most effective means of discerning factual accuracy. The susceptibility of reviews to manipulation is well-documented across various platforms, including Google, Yelp, and Facebook. One might recall the instance of a fabricated London restaurant that ascended to the top ranking on TripAdvisor.

In light of this, I have assembled a consortium of scientists, including Professor Ian Frazer (recognized as a co-developer of the HPV vaccine), and have initiated a platform named Metafact. This initiative adopts a more rigorous, scientific approach to Musk’s foundational concept and is currently experiencing significant growth.

Within the Metafact framework, any user can submit an article for scrutiny or pose a question. This prompts the engagement of over 11,000 accredited specialists across more than 550 distinct fields, who are invited to contribute factual insights. This mechanism facilitates the provision of a considerably more profound and informed scientific perspective on contemporary news and knowledge.

Should an individual seek to ascertain whether climate variability correlates with periods of drought or if there is a connection between infant vaccinations and the development of autism, Metafact facilitates the linkage of such inquiries with hundreds of independent, vetted scientists who are equipped to provide answers.

Thus far, both of these assertions have garnered a unanimous consensus from approximately 30 researchers. Conversely, queries concerning subjects such as the potential health advantages of intermittent fasting or the potential risks associated with silver nanoparticles utilized in antibacterial soaps reveal a divergence of scientific opinion among the contributing experts.

Users possess the functionality to upvote responses deemed exemplary, thereby incentivizing the generation of superior contributions.

Select high-caliber responses will also be featured on ScienceAlert as part of a collaborative editorial arrangement.

Furthermore, content is actively being de-platformed when scientific assertions fail to receive substantiation from experts on Metafact. For instance, a YouTube video that erroneously posited the Belcher’s sea snake as the planet’s most venomous reptile was subsequently removed after undergoing a fact-checking review on the site. This illustrates the latent efficacy of collective fact-sharing when individuals encounter unsubstantiated claims disseminated online.

We have recently initiated a Kickstarter campaign with the objective of attracting founding patrons to provide financial support for scientific endeavors in fact-checking. To date, the campaign has successfully raised in excess of $10,000.

For those interested in participating, an exclusive early-bird membership offer has been established for ScienceAlert readers, valid for the next 48 hours. This offer can be accessed within the ‘Early-bird Tier’ section of the Kickstarter campaign page.

Ben McNeil is a seasoned climate scientist and the Founder of Metafact.io.

The viewpoints articulated in this article may not necessarily align with the perspectives held by the editorial staff of ScienceAlert.