Re: CredWeb Outros (was Re: long time no chat, CredWeb friends)

Hi all. 

As for my outro, I don't recall if I ever did an intro. 

My name is Daveed. I am technologist, futurist, and builder and prognosticator about the future of the web. I have been working a project that is highly aligned with the Credible Web mission but taking an Engelbartian approach. Rather than dealing RDF, we are working on the metadata layer above the webpage. It's like annotation but on steriods. 

Our new book, "," posits that the way to neautralize misinformation, boost content discovery, and enable asynchronous collaboration on knowledge building is to occupy the decentralized public space above the webpage. (The Introduction is attached.) 

We have a prototype that enables one to go visible on a webpage and see everyone else who is there, see their profiles, engage in a page chat, and initiate contact. This enables people to meet based on common interests. The annotation piece enables people to create conceptual links between a piece of information on one page and a piece of information on another page with a relationship such as supporting or contradicting. 

Happy to connect with like minds.


Daveed Benjamin


+52 984 234-1314 (Whatsapp) 

+1 (510) 373-3244 (Voicemail) (Facebook) 

The forthcoming book, is to be published by Taylor & Francis on Oct 9th, 2023. 

Donate crypto to 

---- On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 18:39:03 -0700 Bob Wyman <> wrote ---

Sandro wrote:

"I'm particular curious how people now feel about the Credible Web Mission."

I believe that the mission statement is seriously weakened by its almost exclusive focus on the consumption of content or claims about content. The stated mission is to enable consumers to "tell when content is reliable...,' etc. and to help consumers "find the content they want..." This is all good, but what's missing is an explicit charge to facilitate the expression of the "credibility indicators" upon which other consumers might rely. Certainly, it is implied that some entity(ies) should be able to make claims, but, I believe it would be useful to stress that all consumers should be capable of providing "credibility indicators." Rather than entrusting the task of making statements about credibility to some restricted class of organizations who use specialized tools, we should be enabling every consumer to be a "pro-sumer;" one who both consumes content as well as produces claims about content.

Rather than building new systems which are dedicated to the providing credibility data, I believe that it would make a great deal more sense to focus instead on leveraging those systems that already exist for making statements about web resources. By this I mean the SocialWeb systems such as Twitter, ActivityPub, Mastodon, etc. Given that a very high percentage of SocialWeb posts links to or comments about other web resources, these systems already provide much of what is needed to provide an effective foundation for a credibility-indicator publishing and dissemination system. 

For instance, earlier today, I noticed that the National Academies of Science recently published a report on Since I wanted to see what others had to say about it, I went to Twitter and searched for the report's URL in the Twitter search bar. The result was a list of tweets either just simply linking to the report or providing comments on it. Because I recognized some of the Tweeters who endorsed the report, particularly Dave Roberts, I now have the sense that this report might be worth reading. I regularly do the same thing to uncover commentary on web resources that interest me.  

But, while Twitter provides a crude annotation system that I can use to discover informal "credibility indicators," it is clear that the experience could be greatly improved. For instance, if instead of simply providing for "likes" or prose comments, it was possible to publish structured data ( in a SocialWeb post, my client, or some application, might be able to summarize the claims in some manner useful to me. While getting Twitter to adopt such things might be problematic, it might be more fruitful to work with the to incorporate into ActivityStreams/ to provide a standard method for encoding structured credibility-indicators as social annotations. Ideally, these mechanisms would eventually be incorporated into tools like Mastodon... Once it is possible to publish credibility data into the already established SocialWeb data channels, it would then be useful to move on to addressing other issues. For instance, the development of systems that filter or usefully summarize credibility-indicators coming from a large group composed of individuals having widely varying credibility. (The "Credibility Web" stuff that Sandro has sometimes spoken of in the past would be useful in filtering....) (Note: For another view of the intersection between W3C Annotations and Credibility, see

My strong belief is that CredWeb could make a very useful contribution by addressing the problem of incorporating credibility-indicators as annotations within the SocialWeb. If I were to edit the mission statement today, I would do so with the aim of focusing efforts on leveraging the existing SocialWeb systems which already provide crude methods for the expression and distribution of credibility-indicators by all web consumers (or, at least all those with SocialWeb accounts).

bob wyman

On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 3:00 PM Sandro Hawke <> wrote:

Thanks Scott and Sara-Jayne.   Just to clarify, after talking with
    Scott, the meeting is Wednesday, 1 Nov 2023 (9 days
    from now).  Zoom link will be posted to


 Also, credit to An Xiao Mina, who co-founded the group. She went on
    to other things, but she was a key part of the early stages of the


 Continuing what Sara-Jayne started, I suggest everyone reading this
    post an "outro".  (We started the group with folks doing "intros".) 
    I'm particular curious how people now feel about the, and what kind of work they might still be doing in
    the field.


 For myself, I'm still 100% on board with the first paragraph of the
    mission, but not the use of RDF in the second part.


 I'm working full time to make this a reality. I've pivoted a few
    times in my approach, including moving away from W3C, and these days
    I see the best path to the Credible Web being an integrated data/app


 That is: make credibility data-sharing a part of general data
    sharing (including personal data). That way, the credibility system
    can use the rest of the data sharing system to manage credibility
    assessments, and the rest of the data sharing system can use the
    credibility system to maintain trust and safety. 


 I'm calling this platform with integrated credibility the If you
    want to chat about it, or just want a beta-test invitation when
    they're available, let me know. That's slated for December.


 I hope you're all doing well, and will see some of you on the call
    Nov 1.


      -- Sandro





On 10/23/23 13:57, Sara-Jayne Terp

I can't make the meeting because I'm on stage at
        OODAcon then (talking about trust landscapes with Heather
        McMahon), so here's a written update.  I went back to live in
        the UK, and am now one of the tech leads on ARCD - a project
        using machine learning to respond to cyber attacks at machine
        speed / in places where there's no cyber expert available (we
        have about 60 projects live around the UK right now).  

I took a year out from disinformation response (the DISARM
          Foundation continues the AMITT/DISARM work), but it's starting
          to drag me back in again - I recently started an ATT&CK
          version for the mis/dis/mal around LLMs, so we can talk about
          how they're duped vs how humans are; and had fun using LLMs to
          create an information training environment, with LLM chatbots
          doing narrative attack and response.  Other than that, I've
          been pretty quiet.   


On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 at 13:02,
          Scott Yates <>

You are getting this email because at some
            point you were a part of the CredWeb group in W3C, started
            by the incomparable Sandro Hawke. 

Then I came in and tried to create a new mission for
              the group, and then we all just moved on. 

This group is now going to get deleted unless we find a
              new source of inspiration and leadership, but before we do
              that... maybe we could just get together to get quick
              updates on what we've all been doing?

Let's do it at the time we used to do it: this
              Wednesday at 4 p.m. in London, 11 a.m. Eastern, 8 a.m. in

Here's a

I hope to see a lot of you there! If you can't make
              that time, feel free to drop Sandro and me a note and let
              us know what you are up to, and if you have any thoughts
              about keeping the CredWeb group going.

-Scott Yates



Sara-Jayne Terp | +1
                  646 400 8497 | | @bodaceacat

Received on Friday, 27 October 2023 00:52:20 UTC