Re: Digital Press Passes and Decentralized Public Key Infrastructures

Wikipedia's "assume good faith" is not qualified by "assume good faith 
on topic X but not topic Y".  Part of that assumption is that people are 
choosing to engage only where they have the right expertise.   When it 
comes to misinformation, we cannot make that assumption, but we can 
still define who we trust in the generic sense rather than the particular.

On 7/22/2021 4:55 PM, Alan Karp wrote:
> Trust is contextual.  I trust my bank with my money but not my 
> children.  I trust my sister with my children but not my money.
>
> --------------
> Alan Karp
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2021 at 1:47 PM Bob Wyman <bob@wyman.us 
> <mailto:bob@wyman.us>> wrote:
>
>     Annette,
>     You wrote: "A list of who’s trusted and who isn’t would need to
>     include who is trusted _in_what_context_."
>     This reminded me of a recent discussion on StackExchange of "How
>     is it possible that [insert known crackpot] has articles published
>     in Peer-Reviewed Journals?
>     <https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/170795/how-is-it-possible-that-insert-known-crackpot-has-articles-published-in-peer-r>"
>     Of course, the response provided by many was that we shouldn't be
>     surprised when someone is an expert in one context but a complete
>     crackpot in others. (A classic example might be Hollywood actors
>     who are often asked to expound on world affairs... Who imagines
>     that that might be useful?)
>
>     The reality is that we can't ever say with confidence that "X is
>     credible," rather, the best we could ever say is that "When X
>     speaks about Y, X should probably be considered credible" and even
>     then, we'd need to be careful to specify the time period during
>     which we should ascribe credibility. As Buffy
>     <https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/75368/buffy> commented
>     on StackExchange: "someone who has done important work early on
>     [in their career] can become a crank later in life." And, we
>     should consider the "stopped clock" syndrome mentioned by Graham
>     <https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/43789/graham>: Some
>     statements may have been very credible at the moment that they
>     were made even though later evidence or paradigm shifts made them
>     less credible. (Should one be considered "credible" if what they
>     said was once credible but now is no longer credible?)
>
>     bob wyman
>
>     On Thu, Jul 22, 2021 at 3:49 PM Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov
>     <mailto:amgreiner@lbl.gov>> wrote:
>
>         One important angle on this question is the context of a
>         statement. A list of who’s trusted and who isn’t would need to
>         include who is trusted _in_what_context_. For example, a
>         physician who specializes in dermatology cannot prima facia be
>         taken as an authority on heart transplants, nor vice versa.
>         Part of the misinformation landscape we’ve seen of late is
>         characterized by people getting credit for roles in which they
>         have no expertise because they have credit in some other
>         high-profile role. It would be a serious error on our part to
>         develop a mechanism of people generating lists of those who
>         they consider trustworthy without reference to context.
>         -Annette
>
>>         On Jul 21, 2021, at 9:21 PM, Bob Wyman <bob@wyman.us
>>         <mailto:bob@wyman.us>> wrote:
>>
>>         The best answer to the question "Who decides who is in and
>>         who is out?" is probably "Who cares? Do whatever feels good."
>>         The important thing in building a curated list is to simply
>>         build it.
>