Credibility Signals

Bob, if this group does decide to define Credibility Signals and/or a 
"protocol" for discovery of such signals, I'll look forward to rendering 
the plan in StratML format.

In the meantime, since StratML files are plain XML text, any of the 
search engines can make the performance indicators they contain readily 
discoverable.

Moreover, to the degree that anyone believes anyone else's reported 
performance indicators are misleading (and care enough to do something 
about it), they can use the stratml:Relationship elements 
<https://stratml.us/references/oxygen/PerformancePlanOrReport20160216_xsd.htm#Relationship> 
to link their counter-claims to those they believe are incorrect, simply 
by citing the GUID associated with the indicator.

Bing does a better job of indexing StratML GUIDs than Google. 
https://stratml.us/cusson/BingStratMLGUIDQueries.htm

My sense is that Google is protecting its turf, which relies upon the 
immaturity of information published by others. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine-readable_document

To the degree that may be true, it represents a business opportunity for 
more enlightened and public spirited social entrepreneurs.

I doubt public policymakers are astute enough to raise that issue in 
deliberations of the monopolistic practices of the tech giants.  
However, from my perspective, the W3C's abandonment of its XML 
Recommendation is evidence not only of such practices but also 
artificial ignorance as well as valuing style over substance. 
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/artificial-ignorance-owen-ambur/ | 
https://stratml.us/references/FlashyVIntelligentWeb.pdf

I don't want to grant The Politic Industry even more power than it 
already has.  To the contrary, I'd like to divest power away from most, 
if not all authoritarian, centralized dictators.  On the other hand, I 
am all for creative destruction in the marketplace and hope that We the 
People will not allow the existing powers-that-be to stand in the way 
simply because the interest of big government and big tech coincide on 
many issues. 
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/politics-industry-v-we-people-magic-formula-owen-ambur/

BTW, lest there be any doubt, I strongly agree with Michael Schrage's 
assertions 
<https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6843901423038672896?commentUrn=urn%3Ali%3Acomment%3A%28activity%3A6843901423038672896%2C6843930526210904064%29> 
about the nature of collaboration.

Owen
https://www.linkedin.com/in/owenambur/


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject:  Re: A Suggestion for Bob
Resent-Date:  Sun, 05 Sep 2021 05:34:21 +0000
Resent-From:  internal-credibility@w3.org
Date:  Sun, 5 Sep 2021 01:33:54 -0400
From:  Bob Wyman <bob@wyman.us>
To:  Owen Ambur <Owen.Ambur@verizon.net>
CC:  internal-credibility@w3.org



Owen,
It would be nice if your "myriad AI-enabled intermediaries" 
could support Bob's denial of Alice's claim. However, one must wonder if 
the output of those intermediaries would actually be useful. The problem 
is that unless Alice is willing to allow claims of the intermediaries to 
be posted alongside her own claim, very few, if any, of the people who 
read Alice's claim will see any claims, rebuttals, or proofs that 
challenge Alice's credibility. I think this is a major problem with what 
appears to be the current thinking about these credibility signals. For 
credibility signals to be more than just a means for authors and their 
hosts to publish self-serving claims that support, but do not challenge, 
their own credibility, we need to describe how credibility signals, both 
positive and negative, can be associated with authors, statements, etc. 
without the consent of their subjects and potentially even without their 
knowledge (although such signals need not be hidden). This is why I've 
pointed to annotation protocols on several occasions. Credibility 
signals, published as Web Annotations, would have the needed 
characteristics.

Of course, the existing W3C Web Annotation protocol is incomplete, for 
the desired purpose, since it doesn't define the "search" function 
needed to discover annotations that are related to a specific URL. 
Personally, I think it would make sense for this group to define 
Credibility Signals as annotations and to define the additional protocol 
needed to allow discovery of such annotations. If we were to do this, 
then your "myriad AI-enabled intermediaries" would be able to publish 
their assessment of Alice's claim in a manner that is more likely to be 
discovered by readers of Alice's claim -- if only people were to use 
annotation clients... Your AI-bots might even be enhanced to search out 
other posts with similar claims and annotate them as well.

bob wyman


On Sun, Sep 5, 2021 at 12:14 AM Owen Ambur <Owen.Ambur@verizon.net 
<mailto:Owen.Ambur@verizon.net>> wrote:

    Sandro, thank for sharing these audio/video recordings.

    Since Bob Wyman is troubled by the lack of capability to express to
    the world that he is not a communist, the purpose of this message is
    to offer him a potential means of relief:

        Publish his plan(s) on the Web in StratML Part 1, Strategic Plan
        (ISO 17469-1) format.

    If he were to do so, it would be fairly easy for myriad AI-enabled
    intermediary services to pretty well establish whether he is a
    communist or not, assuming of course that he honestly documents his
    vision, mission, values, goals, objectives, and stakeholders -- as
    best he understands them.

    With reference to Leonard Rosenthol's comment about verification,
    that depends upon whether performance indicators of actual results
    are reliably documented and shared -- preferably in records
    published in an open, standard, machine-readable format like StratML
    Part 2, Performance Plans & Reports (formerly ANSI/AIIM 22:2017).

    Lacking such indicators anyone's guesses and "assertions" are as
    good as anyone else's.  Even if Bob does openly represent himself as
    a card-carrying communist, that alone doesn't truly make him one 
    For example, he could be working as an undercover agent for the FBI
    ... or a spy for fascists ... or a college professor with tenure in
    an ivory tower insulated from reality.  Or perhaps he may
    /mistakenly/ believe that he is a communist.

    What matters is the degree to which he actually participates in
    commandeering other people's property, discouraging personal
    initiative, denying personal responsibility, destroying economic
    incentives, and making everyone poorer, i.e., what real communists do.

    With respect to your concluding comment, I look forward to learning
    whether we can do more together than merely "attend a few meetings
    and exchange E-mail messages". Perhaps I'll have a better sense of
    that when I've had a chance to listen to recording of the
    meet-the-candidates meeting.  If so, I'll "scribe" my understanding
    the the group's plan in StratML format.

    Owen


    [deleted]