- From: Owen Ambur <Owen.Ambur@verizon.net>
- Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2021 11:43:36 -0400
- To: Bob Wyman <bob@wyman.us>
- Cc: CredWeb CG <public-credibility@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <7a3fa353-557e-8dfd-210a-4ab6f60f1ce3@verizon.net>
Bob, from my perspective, any metadata is better than none and I'll be happy to see what anyone can do with annotations. http://ambur.net/MetadataOrMalfeasance.htm However, it seems to me that such efforts are at best a step along the way to more mature records. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine-readable_document BTW, WholeStory's about statement is now available in StratML format at https://stratml.us/drybridge/index.htm#WHLSTR Owen https://www.linkedin.com/in/owenambur/ On 8/14/2021 11:34 AM, Bob Wyman wrote: > On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 9:48 PM Owen Ambur <Owen.Ambur@verizon.net > <mailto:Owen.Ambur@verizon.net>> wrote: > > While I do recognize the relevance of awards to tribal vanity and > solidarity, this evidence reinforces my bias against considering > them to > be a credible indicator of credibility: > > > While plagiarism is a serious failing, I'm not sure that it is correct > to suggest that plagiarized content is any more or less credible than > original content. I assume that Snopes received its Webby award > because of a general perception that its content, however sourced, was > useful in determining the truthfulness of statements. If Snopes were > to post a plagiarised confirmation of its own plagiarism, that might > provide further evidence of their unacceptable behavior, but it would > also strengthen their position as a site that publishes truthful > evaluations of statements, memes, etc. Even if all of Snopes' content > was plagiarized, their credibility would depend on their skill in > choosing what to plagiarize. > > The important thing about credibility signals is to be aware not only > of what they indicate but what they do not indicate. Publishing > credible content does not imply that content is published either > honestly or legally. Credibility should be understood to be context > specific; limited to specific purposes and for particular periods of > time, etc. > > Nonetheless, users of Snopes might wish to know of Snopes' history of > poor content sourcing practices. (Those issuing awards for ethical > conduct might be particularly interested...) This confirms for me the > belief that we need a mechanism that allows one to associate > third-person, discoverable comments or annotations to a credibility > signal. It should be possible, on finding a signal of Snopes' > credibility, to create a new signal which says, in essence: "While > they may have once won an award for one thing, they are, or have been, > plagiarists." If credibility signals were provided as identifiable > elements, for instance via Verificable Credentials that record awards, > it should be possible to use the W3C Annotation protocol to associate > comments or qualifying statements with the identifiers of the > Verificable Credential. > > Snopes won the Webby. That fact can't be changed, however, it would be > useful if one could later make the statement "The winner of this award > has been found to have plagiarized content." Doing this would allow > others to better understand the meaning of, and the limitations of, > Snopes' Webby award. > > Is there any reason why the W3C Annotation protocol would not be a > reasonable mechanism for publishing signals about signals > (meta-signals)? Is there a better mechanism for publishing > discoverable, third-party statements about credibility signals? > > bob wyman
Received on Tuesday, 17 August 2021 15:43:52 UTC