Re: Credibility Signals

Hello,

In regards to W3C web annotations, there is an apache incubating project
that looks at assimilating annotator, hypothes.is, and others ->
https://annotator.apache.org/  <https://annotator.apache.org/>

One could use W3C annotation + schema.org (add schema.org embedded
annotations).

There is a paper on fake news that suggested the use of W3C web annotations
-> https://aclanthology.org/L18-1384.pdf

Thanks,

Adeel

On Sat, 18 Sept 2021 at 17:56, Owen Ambur <Owen.Ambur@verizon.net> wrote:

> 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> <bob@wyman.us>
> To: Owen Ambur <Owen.Ambur@verizon.net> <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> 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]
>>
>