Re: Web credibility community

Dear Ashley, dear Greg,

Thanks so very much for sharing or being willing to share.  I am
interested in your paper under review, Ashley, please send! :)

I do think it would be great to discuss various definitions of
'credibility' that are current in academic literature, not to amplify
this already hefty document (kudos to Sandro) but to think about the
various models and consider how they might inform different
approaches/ways of thinking about things.   Would love to discuss
further/offline if this is of interest to you (also for anyone else) ? 
It would be lovely to create some resources for this especially for our
community at Credibility Coalition; for example we have also just
started a working group that is aiming to create an open source
curriculum on 'credibility literacy' aimed at the professional
development level.

Best,

Connie

-- 
Connie Moon Sehat, PhD
Research Community Lead
Credibility Coalition, a project of Meedan and Hacks/Hackers
credibilitycoalition.org • @credcoalition

connie@meedan.com
connieimdialog@gmail.com
PGP key id: 0xdd67f8e6




On 9/27/18 6:08 AM, Greg Mcverry wrote:
> 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> 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
>>