Re: Web credibility community

Hey,

Thank you for the interest. Attached is the technical report version.

@Greg: Thanks for sharing a copy of your review. I've only had chance to skim read it so far (there is always a sigh of relief when I see that someone in a similar area has discussed similar concepts and referenced the same people/studies as me), however I have printed it off so that I can have a more detailed look over the next couple of days.

@Connie: I definitely think that there is room for a more broad review of credibility assessment. With research normally focusing in on one specific user group, it would be interesting to take a wider, cross-discipline look and pick out similarities/contrasts for working towards more formal definitions throughout the area. I've found that most studies don't report definitions at all due to the subjectivity of credibility (even the attached falls into this trap). I'm very keen to discuss further!

Cheers,
Ashley

________________________________
From: Owen Ambur <Owen.Ambur@verizon.net>
Sent: 27 September 2018 15:40
To: 'Greg Mcverry'
Cc: public-credibility@w3.org; Brian Nosek
Subject: RE: Web credibility community


Greg, thanks for sharing your draft paper.  Here are some points that are of particular interest to me:



… lack of quality control and the ineffectiveness of traditional strategies to evaluate an online text.



… a framework of critical evaluation based on a theory of Connected Learning



… evaluate assessment instruments used by researchers



… move beyond theoretical models of reading that emphasize meaning making as a solitary act but  a cultural act … driven by intentions and a shared purpose.



… understand how truth is shape by our goals, interests, and peers.



… design learning spaces that are openly networked around a shared purpose where critical evaluation is learned through interest driven, academically focused and production based learning.



I strongly agree on the need to move beyond “traditional strategies,” theories and “frameworks” and begin to focus on explicitly documented intentions and shared purposes.



Viewed through the lens of my biases, each of your points highlights the importance of sharing our values, goals, and objectives in an open, standard, machine-readable format like Strategy Markup Language (StratML).



When the aboutthem.info domain propagates through the DNS, I look forward to learning whether it might make a significant contribution by facilitating the development of services enabling the indexing, discovery, and analysis of about me/us/them statements published on the Web in StratML format.



Owen Ambur

Chair, StratML<http://stratml.us/> Working Group

Co-Chair Emeritus, xml.gov CoP<http://xml.govwebs.net/>

Webmaster, FIRM<http://firmcouncil.org/>

Profile<https://www.linkedin.com/in/owenambur> on LinkedIn | Personal Home Page<http://ambur.net/>



From: Greg Mcverry <jgregmcverry@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2018 6:08 AM
To: Ashley Williams <ashley.williams@pg.canterbury.ac.nz>
Cc: public-credibility@w3.org
Subject: Re: Web credibility community



Wow awesome. Here is a draft of an unsubmitted lit review I did.



It is more k12 students and web credibility rather than technological solutions to peer review



https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EQAfjxnPNYWhkK10DfYArptjfXscFrjij5v3D9HmvvQ/edit?usp=drivesdk





I will throw it up my blog with a CC license for others to remix.



Keep meaning to submit somewhere, someday but will be open peer reviewed publication so being in the wild won't matter.



As a tenured professor making the commitment to open access only publishing is easier but I do encourage you to share a "working draft" for community feedback.





On Thu, Sep 27, 2018, 3:09 AM Ashley Williams <ashley.williams@pg.canterbury.ac.nz<mailto:ashley.williams@pg.canterbury.ac.nz>> wrote:

Hi,



I'm a close-to-completion PhD student undertaking a software engineering research project that relates to web credibility. My particular focus is on developing a set of software tools, together with methodology and theory, for (semi-) automatically identifying credible online content. A particular application of the tools would be supporting grey literature reviews and multi-vocal literature reviews e.g. to identify more credible content to be used by (software) practitioners in their decision-making and by (software engineering) researchers in their research. I recently signed up to the web credibility group, and have reviewed the Google Doc.



I notice in the Google Doc that a proposal was made to conduct a literature review. I thought you would be interested to know that I have undertaken a literature review of credibility, and it has been submitted for peer-reviewed publication. If you are interested in the details I can share a technical report or similar. The particulars of the review may not be relevant, but the discussion around the concept of credibility may be of value and could provide some useful citations etc.



I’ve some other thoughts relating to the Google Document too, and I can raise them in due course.



On a separate matter, I accidentally signed myself up on behalf of my institution when in fact my registration should have been for an individual. How could I go about amending that?



Cheers



Ashley