subject of credibility statement, was Re: CredWeb this week

On 4/8/20 11:27 AM, Greg Mcverry wrote:
> "I consider the credibility of [  ] " are we using a persons name, 
> their social media profile, or a canonical link (campaign or .gov 
> site)>? all of the above
>

Working hypothesis / straw proposal is we're using a URL where 
statements appear, and we're talking about the credibility of that page 
and those statements, more than about the person or organization behind 
the page.

We'd been moving in that direction with signals in recent months, and 
then I went fully into that perspective here 
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ShiK_Pkd46foPbWCayfkUh3UV5Bhd5KHI5SKYoUIkiI/edit> 
and so far it seems to be feeling okay.

Obviously some reasoning will need to be brought it at some point tying 
together multiple URLs that are managed by the same people, or 
something, when that can be determined.

     -- Sandro


> On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 10:57 AM Cheryl Langdon-Orr 
> <langdonorr@gmail.com <mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     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
>     <mailto: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
>>         <mailto: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
>>
>
>
>
> -- 
> J. Gregory McVerry, PhD
> Assistant Professor
> Southern Connecticut State University
> twitter: jgmac1106
>
>
>