Author here, I started the project to help people deal with that information overload that modern media has brought with it.<p>The platform currently supports the Analysis of Competing Hypotheses (ACH) technique [1]. Eventually, after we figure out ACH, I hope to roll out additional collaborative analysis techniques developed in the intelligence and business communities.<p>The submitted link is for a playground instance that has no editing restrictions and that doesn't require an email address to register. Please play nice! The official site is at <a href="https://www.opensynthesis.org" rel="nofollow">https://www.opensynthesis.org</a>. You can request an invite for the official site via Google Forms at <a href="https://goo.gl/forms/P6Lgx3nqAhD4zQ8v1" rel="nofollow">https://goo.gl/forms/P6Lgx3nqAhD4zQ8v1</a>. We’ll be opening the site up once we get a better handle on moderation features.<p>The project is open source (GPLv3): <a href="https://github.com/twschiller/open-synthesis" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/twschiller/open-synthesis</a>. It’s built with Python 3 + Django. You can deploy a private instance to try via the Heroku Button.<p>The platform is very young and is rough around the edges. There's still a lot of interesting challenges to solve, especially with respect to user experience and community design. For example: what's the best commenting system? What's the best approach to moderation for politically-sensitive topics?<p>Want to help? I'm looking for contributors to help out with everything from design (we need a logo!) to devops and community building. Check out the 'Help Wanted' label on the issue tracker for concrete ideas of how to contribute. Alternatively, shoot me an email (email is in my profile).<p>Project Twitter: @opensynthesis<p>[1] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analysis_of_competing_hypotheses" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analysis_of_competing_hypothes...</a>
This is very interesting, I'm curious as to how this works outside a controlled environment like the CIA.<p>What sort of arbitration process do you have for judging the quality of evidence and the degree to which evidence agrees with hypotheses?<p>What's to stop trolls from spoiling the process through the above methods, or through adding extraneous hypotheses to confuse the process?