Users can submit any content from the web, print media, or their own uploaded media (i.e. a videotape of a speech) that they feel has a factual error

why? I get really frustrated when I see a blog post from years ago that has clear factual errors. These can arise for more reasons than I have time to mention but range from innocent typos and misunderstandings of a topic all the way up to clear conflicts of interest, conspiracy theories, propaganda and scams.

Unfortunately getting many of these issues fixed directly isn't feasible. The original creator may be impossible to reach, may resent being called out, may genuinely believe in their content, may be a scam artist, etc. Sometimes threads are locked or deleted, sometimes a dissenting voice is banned, and sometimes it exists in archives like archive.org where it's simply a record that isn't meant to be changed even if incorrect.

how it would work: The page or social post or media link in question is spidered, the user highlights one or more factual issues and then provides contrary evidence. Other users can view the issue and agree or disagree with its merit. The submissions themselves can be submitted as well (meta), so there's no threaded messaging but always the opportunity to formally disagree.

The owner of the content is notified if their resource has been listed. Being listed is never in itself an indication of a factual misrepresentation, instead it provides a place for people to view evidence associated with content that someone has deemed questionable - and then use that evidence to come to their own conclusion.

links are noFollow so we don't send link juice to these sites.