Re: Why has CredWeb been silent when it is now needed more than ever?

On Fri, 22 Jan 2021 at 14:54, Sandro Hawke <> wrote:

> On 1/21/21 8:53 PM, Bob Wyman wrote:
> I could go on at length, but first I'd like to ask if you think that this
> kind of protocol-based solution, as an alternative and complement to
> platform-based systems or standards, is something that could or should be
> explored in this group. Is this the right context in which to explore and
> develop such protocol-based approaches?
> I think that's more or less the group's mission.
> The problem is, we don't have people participating in the group who are
> building such systems. It's generally a mistake to try to create a standard
> without participation from people developing viable products which will use
> the standard. I've helped people make that mistake several times in the
> past and it's not good.  It's somewhat related to the architecture
> astronaut problem.
> <>
> I am, myself, building such a system. Unfortunately, I don't currently
> know anyone else who is. I also don't know if it can become a viable
> product.  Until there are several other people who are independently
> building this stuff, I don't see a way for standards-type work to proceed.

That sounds about right.

I still believe a big part of the difficulty here is also that online
credibility is kind of an arms race, so those seeking to be recognized as
credible will be paying close attention to any putative standard or
protocol, which makes developing such things collaboratively in an open way

> The CG has at times been an interesting forum for discussion, though, and
> some good has come out of that. Maybe there's value to re-starting meetings
> like that.

Even just as a meeting place for folks who want to find like-minded
collaborators, a community group has value...

All the best,


> Most recently, I was imagining us having presentations by folks developing
> credibility products, and maybe coming up with a review process. In
> particular, I was thinking about how we could push every project on the
> "why should people trust you?" question.  A proper architecture (like CAI)
> can answer this question in a way that closed apps can't. Crunchbase has
> 500+ companies with the keyword "credibility", 9000+ with the keyword
> "trust", and 59 with the keyword "misinformation". [I haven't gone through
> the 59. Clearly some like snopes and blackbird are about combating misinfo;
> others, like Natalist, are just making reference to how there is
> misinformation in their target market.]
> Is there a story that would get, say, 20 of those 59 to be interested in
> interoperating? I've only talked to a few of them, and I wasn't able to
> think of a serious argument for how their business would benefit from going
> open-data. It might be worth trying some more.

>         -- Sandro

Received on Friday, 22 January 2021 15:26:08 UTC