Re: updates to tomorrow's agenda

I was just thinking that same thing, Tantek. I'm fascinated by this
discussion, but know that some people don't like email as a discussion
forum.

My hunch is that a lot of the discussions could be here:
https://credweb.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/114536-general

I think everyone in this group is also a member of that group.



Scott Yates
Founder
Certified Content Coalition
202-742-6842

On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 7:00 PM, Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 5:51 PM, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 25 Jul 2018, 17:19 Liam R. E. Quin, <liam@w3.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 2018-07-25 at 11:13 -0700, Dan Brickley wrote:
> >> > Domain names seem often mentioned as an
> >> > example,
> >>
> >> Very minor note: domains like "facebook.com" are rather large, and
> >> where organizations have there official Web presence be a facebook page
> >> a single domain isn't uniformly credible... and even relatively trusted
> >> news organizations often have a mix of their own content with user-
> >> supplied articles/opinion pieces/blogs and native advertising[1].
> >
> >
> > I share your concern. It's much easier to acquire an old domain name than
> > e.g. an old newspaper, although obviously latter possible if you have the
> > resources. Still, knowing that eg online articles come from the newsroom
> of
> > an in-some-sense-real-and-established newspaper seems worth pursuing
>
> Newbie (to the CG) meta question: this sounds like an actual
> substantive back-forth topical discussion about domain names and
> credibility inferencing (rather than about "updates to tomorrow's
> agenda"); what is the cultural norm for this community / mailing list
> for forking new topics from existing email threads/subjects?
>
> Since this list is public anyway, has there been any
> consideration/discussion for using the CG's apparent GitHub
> https://github.com/w3c/credweb/issues for splitting-off specific
> topical discussions like that from emails etc.?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tantek
>
>