RE: Is Alice, or her post, credible? (A really rough use case for credibility signals.)

Hi – agree with the general direction of this – with some debates to be had on the specifics. 

 

Couple of comments pertaining to work we’ve done at Repustar that may contribute to this:  

 

* Disinfo Distribution networks:  It’s possible to characterize your distance or closeness to well know disinformation sites that are rated by 3rd parties. For instance the state dept publishes top Russian or Chinese disinfo sites, DeSmog Blog publishes top climate denial disinfo sites.  We (Repustar) have profiled 10s of thousands of social media accounts that have an active distribution relationship with information passing through these sites.  Happy to share more and demo this to the group.  Distance from/entanglement in these disinfo superhighways is a powerful signal.  I would add this to the list.

* If Snopes and the WaPo Fact checkers have reviewed Alice's claim that "Bob is a communist," my browser should indicate to me that those reviews exist and challenge the validity of Alice's statement.
CS>> Repustar has indexed the world’s fact-checkers and makes it available contextually – you can use the search for a US-focused experience on Repustar.com – we have a beta Chrome browser extension too that pops up relevant fact checks/previously debunked claims when you open a URL in exactly the way you envision here (happy to share that too if you are interested – but check out the search first).  I would describe this world as useful, but still low-ish fidelity – because the universe of claims and their nuances have rough but imprecise coverage.  Like a GPS that can locate you in a city block, but not your position on a street.  So very useful signal, if used right – and this will improve with time.

Chandran 

 

From: Bob Wyman <bob@wyman.us> 
Sent: Monday, August 16, 2021 10:37 AM
To: Credible Web CG <public-credibility@w3.org>
Subject: Is Alice, or her post, credible? (A really rough use case for credibility signals.)

 

Alice writes a short post that says:

 

"Bob, a known communist, recently wrote a paper supporting heat pumps. We all know that Hydrogen is a better fuel for heating homes since it has no global warming impact and burning hydrogen produces only water-vapor as a combustion product."

 

Given this, the following should be possible:

* I should be able to discover that there are 10,435 annotations and credibility signals that have been associated with this post and that while some of them are positive, many are negative. That number should alert me to the fact that Alice's post is controversial and thus encourage me to review it more carefully than I otherwise might. Also, because there are so many signals, I'll need innovative tools to summarize, filter, and organize them.
* From among the many annotations or signals created, I should be able to easily discover those signals and annotations authored by the five people or organizations that I personally trust on similar issues. (i.e. FOAF-like filtering)
* If Snopes and the WaPo Fact checkers have reviewed Alice's claim that "Bob is a communist," my browser should indicate to me that those reviews exist and challenge the validity of Alice's statement. 
* If I know Bob, I should be able to support the Snopes and WaPo evaluations by indicating that I have personal knowledge that Bob is not a communist.
* Since Alice identifies herself as "http://example.com/Alice," I should be able to easily find all Credibility Signals, Verified Credentials, etc. that have Alice as their subject. I should be able to do the same for Bob.
* Given that Alice has referred to "Bob's paper," I should be able to "confirm" that such a paper was published and I should be able to provide a link to the paper as proof. (Note: Even though I find the post and Alice to lack credibility, I should be able to support the credibility of parts of the post.)
* I should be able to mark as "false" the claim that hydrogen has no global warming impact and provide links to papers showing that hydrogen's GWP-20 is between 10 and 13. Others may elaborate the hydrogen's GWP-100 is about 5. Others will dispute the credibility or relevance of both of these proofs...
* I should be able to mark as "false in this context" the claim that "burning hydrogen produces only water-vapor," and provide, as proof, links to papers that point out that while burning hydrogen in pure oxygen does, in fact, produce only water-vapor, burning hydrogen in our nitrogen-rich atmosphere produces NOx, NH3, and other emissions that impact either climate or health.
* Since Alice received an award for being the "Hydrogen Producer Association's Spin-master of the Month for August, 2021," I should be able to associate that award with Alice's name on this post. (Note: Some will consider an award from the HPA to support Alice's credibility, others will find that this award challenges her credibility.)
* I should be able to link from Alice's post to my own detailed "rebuttal"of her claims. Many others might link to other rebuttals which will themselves be linked other signals, resources, and claims. Others will link to proofs that support Alice's claims. Thus, Alice's post will become one point of context within a network of information resources which are each related to each other in some way. Starting at Alice's post, one will, in time, be able to find a path to a vast amount of information that both supports and challenges her statements.
* The author of some post, article, or whatever, should be able to ask: "What claims have been supported or challenged based on my post?" by searching through the network of signals, annotations, etc. In this way, the author would gain some sense of their impact as well as discover common misunderstandings that should be addressed in edits or additional posts.
* On discovering what appears to be a well crafted support or challenge of Alice's post, I should be able to ask: "Do the positions of this person usually agree or disagree with those of people I trust?" "What subjects does this individual usually provide signals for?" "What credentials does this person have?", etc.

In thinking about the needs for and the potential mechanisms for providing the context necessary to establish credibility, I can't help remembering a line from Vannevar Bush's 1945 article in the Atlantic Monthly, "As We May Think <https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1945/07/as-we-may-think/303881/> ":

There is a new profession of trail blazers, those who find delight in the task of establishing useful trails through the enormous mass of the common record.

 

I believe that in order to usefully address the issue of credibility and combat misinformation, we  must do those things which will enable Bush's trail blazers of associative links.

 

bob wyman