Thanks - it sounds from https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/product/2021/introduci... (via your first link) that they have a rating system whereby community members get to vote on which notes they think are true (a.k.a. which ones they like), and some sort of reputation system to compensate for the weaknesses of relying solely on votes. Did they publish the details of these systems?

Edit: this, from https://communitynotes.twitter.com/guide/en/about/introducti... (via your third link) is interesting:

Community Notes doesn't work by majority rules. To identify notes that are helpful to a wide range of people, notes require agreement between contributors who have sometimes disagreed in their past ratings. This helps prevent one-sided ratings.

Then they link to https://communitynotes.twitter.com/guide/en/contributing/div..., which expands on that. It seems they're basically trying to control for ideological perspective, i.e. to identify signal that doesn't just boil down to "I like / agree with this". I've often wondered if something like that could work.

>Did they publish the details of these systems?

I didn't look into the details myself, but there is a 24-page paper linked from this page:

>Details of our methodology and past findings can be found in our paper.

https://communitynotes.twitter.com/guide/en/under-the-hood/g...

https://github.com/twitter/communitynotes/blob/main/birdwatc...