Re: Benefit for Whom?

Sorry I could not be there for this week’s call. But here is a very interesting and readable article from Amy Bruckman that I think is very relevant to this group, on how we believe what we believe:

https://www.cc.gatech.edu/fac/Amy.Bruckman/bruckman-believe-wikipedia-draft2019.pdf


[This is one chapter of a whole book to come out in 2021. One more reason to pretend 2020 is not happening, and look forward to 2021]

nishanth


From: Owen Ambur <Owen.Ambur@verizon.net>
Date: Thursday, 9 April 2020 at 03:04
To: "public-credibility@w3.org" <public-credibility@w3.org>
Subject: Benefit for Whom?
Resent from: <public-credibility@w3.org>
Resent date: Thursday, 9 April 2020 at 03:02


+1

One of the purposes of the StratML standard is to encourage organizations to do a better job not only of identifying their intended beneficiaries but also engaging them to provide input and feedback.

I considered the conversation today to be highly constructive, for the very reason that divergent views were aired and consensus was NOT reached.  Hopefully, that means a better output will eventually be produced as a result.

As much as we might like to try, our ability to influence what others think and do is, thankfully, limited (unless, of course, we're the Dear Leader of, say, NOKO or China).  However, we can decide to change our own habits of thought ... and perhaps inspire others to do likewise.

The last thing we need to do is to exacerbate polarization by making it easier to identify those who share our confirmation biases.  Wouldn't it be better to remove our own blinders and be open to divergent points of view, judging the character of the content rather than the human being espousing it?  Didn't somebody say something about casting stones ... and glass houses?  Are we not all human ("deplorables<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FBasket_of_deplorables&data=01%7C01%7Cnishanth.sastry%40kcl.ac.uk%7C0dbe85caeb6e49be193508d7dc2a4d6f%7C8370cf1416f34c16b83c724071654356%7C0&sdata=6wIXAmwIems5Pz16i2v6WN3PhaKv30l4%2B5rvvwkkJgg%3D&reserved=0>" in our own, personalized ways)?  (Oh, yes, I almost forgot, the Russians decided who should be our President.)

Perhaps this 20-year-old paper, entitled "Reconsidering the Higher-Order Legitimacy of French and Raven's Bases of Social Power in the Information Age," might be of interest:  http://ambur.net/French&Raven.htm<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fambur.net%2FFrench%26Raven.htm&data=01%7C01%7Cnishanth.sastry%40kcl.ac.uk%7C0dbe85caeb6e49be193508d7dc2a4d6f%7C8370cf1416f34c16b83c724071654356%7C0&sdata=3sGM2ts%2BIDBjcDRVF3DQDzkhSKCn4TWlqcLs0Twk2Pg%3D&reserved=0>

Owen
On 4/8/2020 4:53 PM, Subbu Vincent wrote:
A quick note after today's call. I added this note to the PNB document, Sandro.

~~~
There is a challenge with the word "benefit". In applied ethics we will ask "benefit for whom?" Depending on the paradigm/frame you get different answers.

If it an individualist frame - net benefit is for me the person.

But not all actions are individual for net personal benefit. Sometimes we are called to act or decide using some information, for collective benefit, or the benefit of everyone. At least some of the actions or non-actions fall into this latter "collectivist" "public" "group" behavior realm and not the individual realm.

Many actions we are called upon to do as members of a community are both. Net personal benefit and collective benefit may be interconnected long term and short term. (E.g. wearing masks when going out). Whatever it is, when the collectivist frame enters, things get complicated (psychology-neuroscience, values, etc.).

My argument is that we clearly delineate the benefits cases, the action cases, etc., even for the COVID19 scenario.
...

On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 10:45 AM Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org<mailto:sandro@w3.org>> wrote:
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://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_1ShiK-5FPkd46foPbWCayfkUh3UV5Bhd5KHI5SKYoUIkiI_edit%26d%3DDwMDaQ%26c%3DiVyFbx9TtkoGWXYs40w9MA%26r%3Dwyi5IBqa49qarh0Bhonvcw%26m%3DjODCsynGE6dy6JL1-PguIamNJh8KdckD_SK9pSG5anA%26s%3DksQIsq5xQuY8-5hWFGYZcnrcuUO1hzDG0qdSo6Gk00Y%26e%3D&data=01%7C01%7Cnishanth.sastry%40kcl.ac.uk%7C0dbe85caeb6e49be193508d7dc2a4d6f%7C8370cf1416f34c16b83c724071654356%7C0&sdata=76bHBB%2FYd25i6EtuWVomfl9oxWYw7Xysne4b0IAkThQ%3D&reserved=0> 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<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__www.researchgate.net_publication_225070332-5FTrust-5FNetworks-5Fon-5Fthe-5FSemantic-5FWeb%26d%3DDwMDaQ%26c%3DiVyFbx9TtkoGWXYs40w9MA%26r%3Dwyi5IBqa49qarh0Bhonvcw%26m%3DjODCsynGE6dy6JL1-PguIamNJh8KdckD_SK9pSG5anA%26s%3D7Ja2fKQIOqYjdRpVrjHPvAErutrhOuJpwDgjHyoqc-w%26e%3D&data=01%7C01%7Cnishanth.sastry%40kcl.ac.uk%7C0dbe85caeb6e49be193508d7dc2a4d6f%7C8370cf1416f34c16b83c724071654356%7C0&sdata=lrZ%2BPgNWPXs46aQSEeaWaGc79BTNfa5Fuosl4nxCF2Q%3D&reserved=0>.

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://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__www.timeanddate.com_worldclock_fixedtime.html-3Fmsg-3DCredWeb-26iso-3D20200408T14-26p1-3D43-26ah-3D1%26d%3DDwMDaQ%26c%3DiVyFbx9TtkoGWXYs40w9MA%26r%3Dwyi5IBqa49qarh0Bhonvcw%26m%3DjODCsynGE6dy6JL1-PguIamNJh8KdckD_SK9pSG5anA%26s%3DmXb_dulvC17ERHHF37-XXbfGJl-hoY-RIaT5UznYylo%26e%3D&data=01%7C01%7Cnishanth.sastry%40kcl.ac.uk%7C0dbe85caeb6e49be193508d7dc2a4d6f%7C8370cf1416f34c16b83c724071654356%7C0&sdata=bnbyu5Y27vWBLqn5x%2FfL9mnINgpMsQcppDgNC%2BDtIfc%3D&reserved=0> usual place https://zoom.us/j/706868147<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__zoom.us_j_706868147%26d%3DDwMDaQ%26c%3DiVyFbx9TtkoGWXYs40w9MA%26r%3Dwyi5IBqa49qarh0Bhonvcw%26m%3DjODCsynGE6dy6JL1-PguIamNJh8KdckD_SK9pSG5anA%26s%3D83JpE5-PNEENW9VKJAHnO8Vp91zu4lLIOWmVzdP0Cbo%26e%3D&data=01%7C01%7Cnishanth.sastry%40kcl.ac.uk%7C0dbe85caeb6e49be193508d7dc2a4d6f%7C8370cf1416f34c16b83c724071654356%7C0&sdata=91sMKirqD0x59mcGKGVrNGcQxwakWRYng3KHPpFhGms%3D&reserved=0>.

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://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__credweb.org_viewer_%26d%3DDwMDaQ%26c%3DiVyFbx9TtkoGWXYs40w9MA%26r%3Dwyi5IBqa49qarh0Bhonvcw%26m%3DjODCsynGE6dy6JL1-PguIamNJh8KdckD_SK9pSG5anA%26s%3D8pJOzKaw_4Yk9HeUPM0wFOFvsOOxlqL74ENj6KSZwkY%26e%3D&data=01%7C01%7Cnishanth.sastry%40kcl.ac.uk%7C0dbe85caeb6e49be193508d7dc2a4d6f%7C8370cf1416f34c16b83c724071654356%7C0&sdata=wDkXQJjUVnDJkbgfpbWvxD7Ed1Uiwfy0oAqAL495QcY%3D&reserved=0> 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://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_18tPpaQnxuGbgG7sOWEfPYWiA9D4vNMfxXR1SJRIvAoI_edit-23%26d%3DDwMDaQ%26c%3DiVyFbx9TtkoGWXYs40w9MA%26r%3Dwyi5IBqa49qarh0Bhonvcw%26m%3DjODCsynGE6dy6JL1-PguIamNJh8KdckD_SK9pSG5anA%26s%3Dq6cdaAb2B0AU1ZWOUngsJxp_XUEbLPhUS5s6ofsf-hg%26e%3D&data=01%7C01%7Cnishanth.sastry%40kcl.ac.uk%7C0dbe85caeb6e49be193508d7dc2a4d6f%7C8370cf1416f34c16b83c724071654356%7C0&sdata=9%2Bjp2eMudX5M5XoheFZZpKL5r1CBWorIvT2f5SWc22M%3D&reserved=0>, 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<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttp-3A__paulgraham.com_cred.html%26d%3DDwMDaQ%26c%3DiVyFbx9TtkoGWXYs40w9MA%26r%3Dwyi5IBqa49qarh0Bhonvcw%26m%3DjODCsynGE6dy6JL1-PguIamNJh8KdckD_SK9pSG5anA%26s%3Dd5jbojTD0E0uMVwf6omkvk2YwmCYqR5WKGnReHL9KPM%26e%3D&data=01%7C01%7Cnishanth.sastry%40kcl.ac.uk%7C0dbe85caeb6e49be193508d7dc2a4d6f%7C8370cf1416f34c16b83c724071654356%7C0&sdata=l2ql13ZZar7SGoWcTc2pDWH2v1oIKDm3nDIA8SM8WB4%3D&reserved=0>, where he argues the public failures of people around Covid-19 ought to negatively impact their credibility.

As I tweeted<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__twitter.com_sandhawke_status_1247183232241672195%26d%3DDwMDaQ%26c%3DiVyFbx9TtkoGWXYs40w9MA%26r%3Dwyi5IBqa49qarh0Bhonvcw%26m%3DjODCsynGE6dy6JL1-PguIamNJh8KdckD_SK9pSG5anA%26s%3DIxQ-20Rg2IiO3uf3sKuwxhh5EPpe4rpwNs2XBKBGRcQ%26e%3D&data=01%7C01%7Cnishanth.sastry%40kcl.ac.uk%7C0dbe85caeb6e49be193508d7dc2a4d6f%7C8370cf1416f34c16b83c724071654356%7C0&sdata=yJBfxwK27nUNUjz0IX7SrDJsbtq%2FOtkC8yV8mBvEQhc%3D&reserved=0> 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://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__twitter.com_w3c%26d%3DDwMDaQ%26c%3DiVyFbx9TtkoGWXYs40w9MA%26r%3Dwyi5IBqa49qarh0Bhonvcw%26m%3DjODCsynGE6dy6JL1-PguIamNJh8KdckD_SK9pSG5anA%26s%3Di61MqtHiZK_0Y4pcwkTQdiD52HmVRxcI9JJDOP1QWus%26e%3D&data=01%7C01%7Cnishanth.sastry%40kcl.ac.uk%7C0dbe85caeb6e49be193508d7dc2a4d6f%7C8370cf1416f34c16b83c724071654356%7C0&sdata=7rnd1%2B3Ftqnlyils1oOXAJ8KCNV2LP7xf490kJbG8yw%3D&reserved=0> http://credweb.org<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__t.co_Sott21IZaX-3Famp-3D1%26d%3DDwMDaQ%26c%3DiVyFbx9TtkoGWXYs40w9MA%26r%3Dwyi5IBqa49qarh0Bhonvcw%26m%3DjODCsynGE6dy6JL1-PguIamNJh8KdckD_SK9pSG5anA%26s%3D_WGItiScG-yBn1qKXHxAfAkqgKO2jsc9aavp8SXDC9o%26e%3D&data=01%7C01%7Cnishanth.sastry%40kcl.ac.uk%7C0dbe85caeb6e49be193508d7dc2a4d6f%7C8370cf1416f34c16b83c724071654356%7C0&sdata=R5FU6slgUHeieHH3TxjTxSHeq4hkBo6h8gOSdbCvS80%3D&reserved=0>. 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://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_1ShiK-5FPkd46foPbWCayfkUh3UV5Bhd5KHI5SKYoUIkiI_edit%26d%3DDwMDaQ%26c%3DiVyFbx9TtkoGWXYs40w9MA%26r%3Dwyi5IBqa49qarh0Bhonvcw%26m%3DjODCsynGE6dy6JL1-PguIamNJh8KdckD_SK9pSG5anA%26s%3DksQIsq5xQuY8-5hWFGYZcnrcuUO1hzDG0qdSo6Gk00Y%26e%3D&data=01%7C01%7Cnishanth.sastry%40kcl.ac.uk%7C0dbe85caeb6e49be193508d7dc2a4d6f%7C8370cf1416f34c16b83c724071654356%7C0&sdata=76bHBB%2FYd25i6EtuWVomfl9oxWYw7Xysne4b0IAkThQ%3D&reserved=0>, 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





--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subramaniam (Subbu) Vincent
Director, Journalism and Media Ethics,
Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, Santa Clara University
LinkedIn<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__www.linkedin.com_in_subbuvincent%26d%3DDwMFaQ%26c%3D5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw%26r%3D4DXVZEkHbjQ-GSaDRHRSNDk3G2EzTwJo3aSnh8e-ZcY%26m%3D6ogjsD8d8iOY_KNFn9Gig-QVcztiMFMnBT9qyTW-vq0%26s%3DaMnmKpFJDh-tZa7PgTYeiac1ojHgOVxkdwIdPTcN37E%26e%3D&data=01%7C01%7Cnishanth.sastry%40kcl.ac.uk%7C0dbe85caeb6e49be193508d7dc2a4d6f%7C8370cf1416f34c16b83c724071654356%7C0&sdata=O11wFS7pU4fK5D5BweBZCsp%2BtkGuAGIiMVglOzDKpyw%3D&reserved=0> | Twitter<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__twitter.com_subbuvincent%26d%3DDwMFaQ%26c%3D5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw%26r%3D4DXVZEkHbjQ-GSaDRHRSNDk3G2EzTwJo3aSnh8e-ZcY%26m%3D6ogjsD8d8iOY_KNFn9Gig-QVcztiMFMnBT9qyTW-vq0%26s%3D_HcPyCH3sWsYYekDm-gobSdCatYz40X49JekeiwKwW0%26e%3D&data=01%7C01%7Cnishanth.sastry%40kcl.ac.uk%7C0dbe85caeb6e49be193508d7dc2a4d6f%7C8370cf1416f34c16b83c724071654356%7C0&sdata=UgyZhi%2F70EsrcNNePOvZ0WXB3oBgFLVhU6hOboTAIkg%3D&reserved=0> | Tel: 408 551 7070