Re: CredWeb Plans, meeting tomorrow

Thanks for the doc!  I’ll give it a read…

> I am not sure I would agree an asset in a page could not be judged using the credibility signals. If I annotate an asset used on a page I could tag it with credibility signals.
>
True.  But *only* in the context of that page.  If that image is a link to an image on someone else’s site – or on a social media feed – then your signal won’t be seen by anyone viewing that image via some other mechanism.  This is why having a way to signal/claim on the original/source is key…

Leonard

From: Greg Mcverry <jgregmcverry@gmail.com>
Date: Monday, January 20, 2020 at 5:42 PM
To: Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>
Cc: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, Credible Web CG <public-credibility@w3.org>
Subject: Re: CredWeb Plans, meeting tomorrow

This may help, it is a bit of lit review on website credibility I never published: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EQAfjxnPNYWhkK10DfYArptjfXscFrjij5v3D9HmvvQ/edit?usp=sharing<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fdocument%2Fd%2F1EQAfjxnPNYWhkK10DfYArptjfXscFrjij5v3D9HmvvQ%2Fedit%3Fusp%3Dsharing&data=02%7C01%7Clrosenth%40adobe.com%7C30c39b0252094302231d08d79df9fa79%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637151569292753219&sdata=%2B2u6CAeVdrn0YRbSyQ7M7JmtOcvdnHUdDVK7bHWdb6Q%3D&reserved=0>

I am not sure I would agree an asset in a page could not be judged using the credibility signals. If I annotate an asset used on a page I could tag it with credibility signals.

I do that with my students now. It isn't part of this work but I teach kids to develop a credibility codebook and as we read websites, and the assets embedded on those pages we annotate, evaluate sometimes on likert scales, and then assign codes from our credibility codebook.


Sandro provided an awesome description of how website publication date (currency being its old offline "signal") could be used as one potential claim. Personally I think it is best to continue our focus on a small vocabulary of credibility signals then pick up the work the old VC group stopped pursuing, but happy to be persuaded (even if your claims aren't on the blockchain....a citation or link will do).

On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 3:23 PM Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com<mailto:lrosenth@adobe.com>> wrote:
Greg – those references all sound interesting though not being an expert in the areas that you are citing, they are lost on me – sorry.   Also, as I mentioned, I am not convinced that the same ideas around web page authenticity applies to assets (found on those pages or elsewhere).

A claim need not be connected to block chain at all – but given where many fo the members of that work were coming from – it’s not surprising they went that way.  Perhaps that’s another reason that this group could pick it up.

Leonard

From: Greg Mcverry <jgregmcverry@gmail.com<mailto:jgregmcverry@gmail.com>>
Date: Monday, January 20, 2020 at 3:00 PM
To: Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com<mailto:lrosenth@adobe.com>>
Cc: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org<mailto:sandro@w3.org>>, Credible Web CG <public-credibility@w3.org<mailto:public-credibility@w3.org>>
Subject: Re: CredWeb Plans, meeting tomorrow

I was using author credibility as one example similar to currency.

Reih and Belkin back in 1997 took Wilsons (1983) cognitive authority and applied it to the web.
Personal authority
Recognizing authority
Institutional authority
Authority or text type
Author in context.

That work combined with Alexander & Tate framed much of the research last twenty years.

Other influence came from the Design research community. Specifically Fogg et al work based on Taylor's s (1986) information quality.

The first group of studies look at making consumers more critical. The second looked at identifying what makes sources seem credible to consumers.

I follow the VC work, its just too many degrees close to "Blockchain all the things" for me.

Plus been burnt on badging too many times. Just using webmentions to verify claims and credentials I make.



On Mon, Jan 20, 2020, 2:49 PM Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com<mailto:lrosenth@adobe.com>> wrote:
> The VC working group is now just looking at verified credentials, not claims, that verified credential could be a "signal" of author credibility.
>
Yes, though I think they stopped too soon – and need to revisit the original Claims work.  (but that’s a separate discussion 😊).

>"signal" of author credibility.
>
What if the author is (and most remain) anonymous?   But you want to “signal” that authenticity/credibility of the work?  Is that possible/relevant?


Leonard

From: Greg Mcverry <jgregmcverry@gmail.com<mailto:jgregmcverry@gmail.com>>
Date: Monday, January 20, 2020 at 2:46 PM
To: Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com<mailto:lrosenth@adobe.com>>
Cc: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org<mailto:sandro@w3.org>>, Credible Web CG <public-credibility@w3.org<mailto:public-credibility@w3.org>>
Subject: Re: CredWeb Plans, meeting tomorrow

I have been following the DID and Verified Claim working group and I think the answer is yes, maybe?

When the credentials group merged in with claims the idea of "claim" being any data that someone or thing could verify.

The idea of "claim" in credibility research probably traces back to Toulmins argument model of claim, evidence, and warrant.

The VC working group is now just looking at verified credentials, not claims, that verified credential could be a "signal" of author credibility.

So in our vocabulary you could have RDF to note if an author credibility has been verified.


On Mon, Jan 20, 2020, 2:32 PM Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com<mailto:lrosenth@adobe.com>> wrote:
> that "signal" has a long history in credibility research as a "marker" to the consumer to indicate if a source is credible or not.
>
So that sounds like an alternative term for what I have been calling a “claim” (based on the terminology from the Verifiable Claims (now Credentials) WG at the W3C - https://www.w3.org/2017/vc/WG/<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2017%2Fvc%2FWG%2F&data=02%7C01%7Clrosenth%40adobe.com%7C30c39b0252094302231d08d79df9fa79%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637151569292763213&sdata=WyXKNfyBxl6qbwyaisNF4HqqmQKkj%2BuXUKO9cD0KTw4%3D&reserved=0>).  Yes?

Does a “signal” use any sort of technology to ensure authenticity (eg. hashes or signatures)?  Or is that out of scope or TBD??

Leonard

From: Greg Mcverry <jgregmcverry@gmail.com<mailto:jgregmcverry@gmail.com>>
Date: Monday, January 20, 2020 at 2:08 PM
To: Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com<mailto:lrosenth@adobe.com>>
Cc: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org<mailto:sandro@w3.org>>, Credible Web CG <public-credibility@w3.org<mailto:public-credibility@w3.org>>
Subject: Re: CredWeb Plans, meeting tomorrow

I believe, though class schedules kept me from meetings last semester and I am not a developer, that "signal" has a long history in credibility research as a "marker" to the consumer to indicate if a source is credible or not.

So the RDF would be a bit of machine readable data as a vocabulary of of traditional human readable and disagreeable signals of credibility. For example you may have a currency "signal" that equates to an RDF vocabulary for publication date.

Please others correct any misconceptions I may have.

Should be there tomorrow, first day of semester, never know what random meetings pop up.


On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 12:32 PM Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com<mailto:lrosenth@adobe.com>> wrote:
I apologize in advance if this is explained elsewhere – but I don’t understand the difference you are making between a “signal” and the “data format” that an API would use (or might be embedded in an asset).

I realize that I am coming at this from the side of assets (image, audio, video, documents) as opposed to web pages – but to me they are one and the same.

Thanks,
Leonard

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org<mailto:sandro@w3.org>>
Date: Monday, January 20, 2020 at 11:31 AM
To: Credible Web CG <public-credibility@w3.org<mailto:public-credibility@w3.org>>
Subject: CredWeb Plans, meeting tomorrow
Resent-From: <public-credibility@w3.org<mailto:public-credibility@w3.org>>
Resent-Date: Monday, January 20, 2020 at 11:30 AM

Hey folks,

It's a new year, and we've had some quiet weeks.  I'm trying to settle on some next steps for the group. Here's what I'm thinking:

1. Let's not try to update the report right now. Let's just convert it to a "final report", to make it properly archival, with a clear note that it was written in 2018. Maybe a short name like "Credibility Tech 2018<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcredweb.org%2Freport%2F20181011&data=02%7C01%7Clrosenth%40adobe.com%7C30c39b0252094302231d08d79df9fa79%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637151569292763213&sdata=Mz%2BvFUupQbotyiVTdBQiC9A2OpjRsyxNqF%2FpDJUY8RQ%3D&reserved=0>". If there's sufficient interest in a revision or new reports that are more focused later, that's fine, but I don't think it's the best use of group time right now.

2. Instead of Credibility Signals<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcredweb.org%2Fsignals-beta%2F&data=02%7C01%7Clrosenth%40adobe.com%7C30c39b0252094302231d08d79df9fa79%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637151569292773207&sdata=IxB1vC4ESrF2BwE5smf7H6oPbXeNgxJnBxEMqoZxeow%3D&reserved=0> trying to include everything about signals while also highlighting the good stuff, let's split it into three different resources:

* Credibility APIs, a technical guide for how computers should talk to other computers to exchange credibility data. Included data formats, protocols, RESTful APIs, browser APIs, etc. Not a spec for any of these, but an overview of options that are specified elsewhere. I'm thinking we can publish a small draft and start to gather input.

* A Credibility Data Exchange, a website for exploring all the signal definitions and signal instance data people are willing to make public, with clear attribution back to the sources and no endorsement from us. I've made a few prototypes over the years (like https://data.credweb.org<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdata.credweb.org%2F&data=02%7C01%7Clrosenth%40adobe.com%7C30c39b0252094302231d08d79df9fa79%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637151569292783202&sdata=QYkI6bqNizcc6cGyHw4d8ywPUrl1hA%2BQ4HUyUgJ%2FLHs%3D&reserved=0>) but none I was happy with, yet. Maybe this should just be my thing, not the group's; that's topic for discussion. (It might help if someone wanted to fund this.)

* Endorsed Credibility Signals.  This would be a relatively small document, describing 5-20 signals where we have consensus within the group that they are pretty good. I'd expect it to change over time with new data. The RDF schema for these signals would be published on w3.org<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fw3.org%2F&data=02%7C01%7Clrosenth%40adobe.com%7C30c39b0252094302231d08d79df9fa79%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637151569292783202&sdata=C%2F89tr7cNx%2Bnvj7ICayhO4%2BPwUNIpJblNIv29r0p1sA%3D&reserved=0>. It would intentionally be kept small enough to be manageable, unlike the Exchange as past "Signals" drafts. I think some of the NewsQ highlight signals<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcredweb.org%2Fsignals-beta%2F%23newsq-highlight&data=02%7C01%7Clrosenth%40adobe.com%7C30c39b0252094302231d08d79df9fa79%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637151569292793201&sdata=PYGkckKg8ctD%2Ft2BQFYGny2ApiVRSQ%2B1zwWGbnAVsvg%3D&reserved=0> are good options here, and there are also some that are doable by hand (like these<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fdocument%2Fd%2F1ADJX57-xMHIIHrnzEycFrn4fUGQ63SD8hyEHqScYnTY%2Fedit&data=02%7C01%7Clrosenth%40adobe.com%7C30c39b0252094302231d08d79df9fa79%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637151569292803194&sdata=eduABnd5lNyF5VZinZeqwVRbh3IP8MfyFo83tRZo93Q%3D&reserved=0>).

So, agenda for tomorrow is to talk about this plan, and if there's time, talk about the actual signals we might be ready to endorse.

If you can't make it to the meeting and have thoughts on all this, email could be helpful.

Meeting, as usual: 21<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.timeanddate.com%2Fworldclock%2Ffixedtime.html%3Fmsg%3DCredWeb%26iso%3D20200121T13%26p1%3D43%26ah%3D1&data=02%7C01%7Clrosenth%40adobe.com%7C30c39b0252094302231d08d79df9fa79%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637151569292803194&sdata=oVR7XPIesW5Jfu03z%2FJccxZ6Wqp9hp2yPNfZ%2BStwBBA%3D&reserved=0>
January 2020 1pm ET<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.timeanddate.com%2Fworldclock%2Ffixedtime.html%3Fmsg%3DCredWeb%26iso%3D20200121T13%26p1%3D43%26ah%3D1&data=02%7C01%7Clrosenth%40adobe.com%7C30c39b0252094302231d08d79df9fa79%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637151569292813199&sdata=rmvRZdvHjiRFVTKciN57XJE0DnWh6knMadqTeMimSt4%3D&reserved=0>,
https://zoom.us/j/706868147<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fzoom.us%2Fj%2F706868147&data=02%7C01%7Clrosenth%40adobe.com%7C30c39b0252094302231d08d79df9fa79%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637151569292823184&sdata=OTXG9zNji2N0%2FVxmsl4xoGaaMhJO4x0SuERdEeRouwk%3D&reserved=0>, agenda/record<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fdocument%2Fd%2F1Zegy2ASbsRtkz8vNVYUXHopZjjXbZweJ5Co8TEW_8w0%2Fedit%23&data=02%7C01%7Clrosenth%40adobe.com%7C30c39b0252094302231d08d79df9fa79%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637151569292823184&sdata=b0FHRGUVkQzzKXBm61luLDLfNah2FMXLTFwPyd%2Fp4co%3D&reserved=0>

     -- Sandro


--
J. Gregory McVerry, PhD
Assistant Professor
Southern Connecticut State University
twitter: jgmac1106


--
J. Gregory McVerry, PhD
Assistant Professor
Southern Connecticut State University
twitter: jgmac1106