3. Open source the database and the bot.

Yes. A certain amount of my complaint about MBFC bot is not that it's a bad idea per se, it's just that the database and categorizations are laughably bad. It puts Al Jazeera in the same factual classification as TASS. It lists MSNBC as factually questionable and then when you look at the actual list, a lot of them are MSNBC getting it right and MBFC getting it wrong. It might as well be retitled "The New York Times's Awful Neoliberal Idea of Reality Check Bot". (And not talking about the biases ranking -- if that one is skewed it is fine, but they claim things are not factual if they don't match the appropriate bias, and the bias is unapologetic center-right.)

You can't set yourself up to sit in judgement of sources that write dozens of articles every single day about unfolding world events where the "objectively right" perspective isn't always even obvious in hindsight, and then totally half-ass the job of getting your basic facts straight about the sources you're ranking, and expect people to take you seriously. I feel like mostly the Lemmy hivemind is leaps and bounds ahead of MBFC bot at determining which sources are worth listening to.

2. it wouldn't be too hard to manually enter Wikipedia's Perennial Sources list into the database that the bot references

FUCK FUCK FUCK YES

This is an actual up-to-date and very extensive list that people who care bother to keep up to date in detail (even making distinctions like "hey this source is ok for most topics but they are biased when talking about X, Y, Z"). This would immediately do away with like 50% of my complaint about MBFC bot.

For example, if we retain MBFC, the layout could look something like this:

Rolling Stone Bias: Left, Credibility: High, Factual Reporting: High - United States of America

MBFC report | bot support | Search topics on Ground.News

in which "Rolling Stone" is linked to the Wikipedia article.

With RSP, it could look something like this:

Rolling Stone is generally reliable on culture

There is consensus that Rolling Stone has generally reliable coverage on culture matters (i.e., films, music, entertainment, etc.). Rolling Stone's opinion pieces and reviews, as well as any contentious statements regarding living persons, should only be used with attribution. The publication's capsule reviews deserve less weight than their full-length reviews, as they are subject to a lower standard of fact-checking. See also Rolling Stone (politics and society), 2011–present, Rolling Stone (Culture Council).

Rolling stone is generally unreliable on politics and society, 2011–present

According to a 2021 RfC discussion, there is unanimous consensus among editors that Rolling Stone is generally unreliable for politically and societally sensitive issues reported since 2011 (inclusive), though it must be borne in mind that this date is an estimate and not a definitive cutoff, as the deterioration of journalistic practices happened gradually. Some editors have said that low-quality reporting also appeared in some preceding years, but a specific date after which the articles are considered generally unreliable has not been proposed. Previous consensus was that Rolling Stone was generally reliable for political and societal topics before 2011. Most editors say that Rolling Stone is a partisan source in the field of politics, and that their statements in this field should be attributed. Moreover, medical or scientific claims should not be sourced to the publication.

RSP listing | bot support | Search topics on Ground.News

Both examples with everything necessary linked, of course

Seconded. #1 is why I currently have it blocked.

For 3 they said they'd release the code when it was announced, but have been completely silent since. Maybe it'll be public when sublinks goes live lol