Judge

Adjudicating between contributor and fact checker disputes

Judges play a crucial role in maintaining the integrity of the Olas platform by overseeing the accuracy of content published on the platform. Judges organize, review, and vote on inaccuracies identified by Fact Checkers in articles published within their areas of expertise. Judging panels consist of content contributors with expertise in the relevant field as well as fact/context checkers of proven ability. Olas rewards honest, unbiased judgment. Randomised panel selection, anonymous panels with secret ballot voting and the requirement of a stake ensure judges are incentivized to remain impartial.

Primary Duties of Judges Include:

• Reviewing Articles: Assessing concerns identified by Fact Checkers.

• Streamlining Evaluation: Consolidating similar fact-checking queries for efficient assessment.

• Scoring Questions: Assigning severity and accuracy scores to questions raised by Fact Checkers.

Becoming a Judge

Content Contributors: When signing up for the platform, content contributors must select primary and secondary fields of specialty. They are then randomly selected for judging panels on articles written on these topics. It is obligatory to accept judging panel selection for primary speciality topics. A contributor must accept one out of every three judging panel requests for secondary specialities. Aside from this contributors must:

• Have a minimum reputation score.

• Have an account balance that meets the minimum stake amount required for panel participation.

Super Forecasters: Exceptional Fact Checkers, with an outstanding track record of uncovering inaccuracies, can apply to join any Judging Panel as Super Forecasters. These judges must stake their own funds to participate in the panel.

Rights and Responsibilities

Lead Judge: One participant from the judging panel is randomly assigned the role of Lead Judge. This role involves organizing initial fact checking questions, merging similar ones, and assigning quality scores to Fact Checkers based on their question formulation.

Judges: Review and score the Lead Judge's collated questions, assigning Severity Scores to gauge the importance of each question, and Accuracy Scores to determine the validity of each issue raised. Rewards for Fact Checkers and Judges are determined based on the panel results.

Incentives

Financial Rewards: Judging is another potential income stream for contributors with subject-matter expertise. It's also an opportunity for those with excellent research and forecasting skills to make money in a freelancing gig-economy capacity.

Reputation-Based Rewards: Judges who maintain a high reputation score unlock more exclusive Judging Panel opportunities, thereby enhancing their earning potential. Conversely, judges with declining reputation scores may encounter restricted access to panel opportunities and will face suspension if their scores fall below the specified threshold required by judges.