W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > July 2021

Re: Digital Press Passes and Decentralized Public Key Infrastructures

From: Alan Karp <alanhkarp@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2021 13:55:58 -0700
Message-ID: <CANpA1Z3v7WzJw038wrciUMGdHmGp=ymmPz9_wSY8sFfaPufCzA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bob Wyman <bob@wyman.us>
Cc: Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov>, "public-credibility@w3.org" <public-credibility@w3.org>, "public-credentials@w3.org" <public-credentials@w3.org>
Trust is contextual.  I trust my bank with my money but not my children.  I
trust my sister with my children but not my money.

Alan Karp

On Thu, Jul 22, 2021 at 1:47 PM Bob Wyman <bob@wyman.us> wrote:

> Annette,
> You wrote: "A list of who’s trusted and who isn’t would need to include
> who is trusted _in_what_context_."
> This reminded me of a recent discussion on StackExchange of "How is it
> possible that [insert known crackpot] has articles published in
> Peer-Reviewed Journals?
> <https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/170795/how-is-it-possible-that-insert-known-crackpot-has-articles-published-in-peer-r>
> "
> Of course, the response provided by many was that we shouldn't be
> surprised when someone is an expert in one context but a complete crackpot
> in others. (A classic example might be Hollywood actors who are often asked
> to expound on world affairs... Who imagines that that might be useful?)
> The reality is that we can't ever say with confidence that "X is
> credible," rather, the best we could ever say is that "When X speaks about
> Y, X should probably be considered credible" and even then, we'd need to be
> careful to specify the time period during which we should ascribe
> credibility. As Buffy
> <https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/75368/buffy> commented on
> StackExchange: "someone who has done important work early on [in
> their career] can become a crank later in life." And, we should consider
> the "stopped clock" syndrome mentioned by Graham
> <https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/43789/graham>: Some statements
> may have been very credible at the moment that they were made even though
> later evidence or paradigm shifts made them less credible. (Should one be
> considered "credible" if what they said was once credible but now is no
> longer credible?)
> bob wyman
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2021 at 3:49 PM Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov> wrote:
>> One important angle on this question is the context of a statement. A
>> list of who’s trusted and who isn’t would need to include who is trusted
>> _in_what_context_. For example, a physician who specializes in dermatology
>> cannot prima facia be taken as an authority on heart transplants, nor vice
>> versa. Part of the misinformation landscape we’ve seen of late is
>> characterized by people getting credit for roles in which they have no
>> expertise because they have credit in some other high-profile role. It
>> would be a serious error on our part to develop a mechanism of people
>> generating lists of those who they consider trustworthy without reference
>> to context.
>> -Annette
>> On Jul 21, 2021, at 9:21 PM, Bob Wyman <bob@wyman.us> wrote:
>> The best answer to the question "Who decides who is in and who is out?"
>> is probably "Who cares? Do whatever feels good." The important thing in
>> building a curated list is to simply build it.
Received on Thursday, 22 July 2021 20:56:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:25:18 UTC