Community Notes is X's crowdsourced fact-checking program: contributors write short notes that add context to potentially misleading posts, and other contributors rate whether those notes are helpful. Its algorithm uses a matrix factorization model to separate ideology from note quality, so notes are surfaced only when they receive support across ideological lines. After ideology is accounted for, however, the model gives all raters equal influence on quality estimates. This slows consensus formation and leaves the quality estimate vulnerable to noisy or strategic raters. We propose Quality-Sensitive Matrix Factorization (QSMF), which uses a per-rater quality-sensitivity parameter \(\hatρ_i\) estimated jointly with all other parameters. This connects QSMF to peer prediction: without external ground truth, it gives more influence to raters whose ideology-adjusted ratings are more consistent with the note-quality estimates learned from all the ratings. We evaluate QSMF on 45M ratings over 365K notes from the six months before the 2024 U.S. presidential election. Split-half tests confirm that quality sensitivity is a stable, empirically recoverable rater trait. In evaluation on high-traffic notes, QSMF requires 26--40\% fewer ratings to match the baseline's accuracy. In semi-synthetic coordinated attacks on notes of opposing ideology, QSMF substantially reduces displacement on the estimated quality estimates of targeted notes relative to the baseline. In synthetic data with known ground truth, \(\hatρ_i\) separates good from bad raters with an AUC above 0.94, and achieves much lower error in recovering the true note quality estimates in the presence of bad raters. These gains come from a single additional scalar parameter per rater, with no external ground truth and no manual moderation.