W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credibility@w3.org > August 2021

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

From: Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov>
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2021 13:37:06 -0700
Message-Id: <C7893541-2C46-45D2-9CEE-430123567CCD@lbl.gov>
Cc: scsankaran@gmail.com, Credible Web CG <public-credibility@w3.org>
To: Bob Wyman <bob@wyman.us>
I don’t think this is a wise approach at all. We are seeing now that fraudsters and misinformation dealers are able to gain traction because there is so little barrier to their reaching high numbers of readers. Any real solution must not make it just as easy to spread misinformation as good information. It must yield a signal with much much less noise than the currently available signals. Increasing the level of he-said/she-said doesn’t help determine what is reliable information. Adding to the massive amounts of junk is not the answer.

> On Aug 16, 2021, at 11:52 AM, Bob Wyman <bob@wyman.us> wrote:
> The thrust of my post is that we should dramatically enlarge the universe of those who make such claims to include all users of the Internet. The result of enabling every user of the Web to produce and discover credibility signals will be massive amounts of junk, but also a great many signals that you'll be able to use to filter, analyze, and reason about claims and the subjects of claims.

Received on Tuesday, 17 August 2021 20:37:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 17 August 2021 20:37:27 UTC