Re: CredWeb this week

Sandro et. al.  I need to be an apology, my calls tonight. ended just now
around 0100 and I am already so darn weary, I can hardly keep my eyes open
so going to get some sleep (I doubt I will wake for the 0400 call but if I
do well then obviously I will dial in

On Wed, Apr 8, 2020, 04:33 Daniel Schwabe <dschwabe@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Sandro,
> I’m sorry for being late with this info, I meant to send it earlier. The
> models we discussed are similar to Jenny Golbecks work @Mariland under J.
> Hendler, but not seen as “probabilities”. Take a look at
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225070332_Trust_Networks_on_the_Semantic_Web
> .
>
> Cheers
> D
>
>
> On 7 Apr 2020, at 14:28, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> wrote:
>
> Meeting this week, usual time, 8 April 2020 2pm ET
> <https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=CredWeb&iso=20200408T14&p1=43&ah=1> usual
> place https://zoom.us/j/706868147.
>
> Last week, we had a lively discussion of my straw proposal for a
> credibility network to help people figure out who they should trust. Coming
> out of that, I wanted to try running the network viewer
> <https://credweb.org/viewer/> on people's real credibility statements (so
> far we have some from me, Symeon, Subbu, and Annette), but I wasn't able to
> get to that this week, alas.
>
> I did write up The “Probability of Net Benefit” PNB Credibility Score
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/18tPpaQnxuGbgG7sOWEfPYWiA9D4vNMfxXR1SJRIvAoI/edit#>,
> in the hope of making that part of the discussion more concrete. I'd love
> to see other proposals for how we can combine or reason about credibility
> data, since this one has some clear flaws.
>
> One interesting focus this week might be Paul Graham's new micro-essay, Coronavirus
> and Credibility <http://paulgraham.com/cred.html>, where he argues the
> public failures of people around Covid-19 ought to negatively impact their
> credibility.
>
> As I tweeted <https://twitter.com/sandhawke/status/1247183232241672195>
> back to him: "Indeed. But humans aren't very good at remembering these
> details, and we don't currently have good systems for collaborating on
> this. Open solution in the works at @W3C <https://twitter.com/w3c> http://
> credweb.org <https://t.co/Sott21IZaX?amp=1>. Hoping to release demo in a
> matter of days."
>
> We could perhaps do that with credibility statements like:
>
>    - I consider the credibility of [  ] to be (increased | decreased) by
>    [  ]
>    - I consider the credibility of [  ] on the topic of covid-19 to be
>    (increased | decreased) by [  ]
>    - I consider [  ] to be not credible on the topic of covid-19 due to
>    [  ] as seen at URL [  ]
>    - ...
>
> If you could spend a few minutes trying to make statements like that, to
> see what feels right, and make them available (like this
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ShiK_Pkd46foPbWCayfkUh3UV5Bhd5KHI5SKYoUIkiI/edit>,
> same as last week, or just in email to the list), it will help inform a
> discussion tomorrow, and I will redouble my efforts to make a viewer for
> them.
>
>     -- Sandro
>
>
>