Mary Branscombe (marypcb) wrote,
Mary Branscombe

Details matter: Web credibility

"It must be true - it was in the paper/on the TV/on the Web..."
We tend to assume that if something's been published, it's got some validity, when all it means is that it's been published. The recent spat over who appropriated what CSS from whom shows that citizen editing only works if people put in more effort than just reading and reacting to a story. Credibility online longterm needs a reputation system of some kind - what Dave Sifry called 'PageRank for people' when he was at Technorati. In the short term, the Stanford Credibility Guidelines are fairly simplistic and maybe more use as an indicator of what naive mainstream visitors are influenced by, but it's a handy list.
Tags: development, links, technology

  • My tweets

    Sun, 12:40: RT @ MSFTResearch: Explore artists’ interventions on surveillance, from policing to encryption, e-waste, & AI. Join Dr. Simone…

  • My tweets

    Sat, 17:30: proof that a feature hasn't shipped until it's documented Sat, 17:33: RT @ sarahmquinlan: So many men…

  • My tweets

    Fri, 12:29: RT @ soapachu: Hey remember when he illegally prorogued Parliament to prevent scrutiny of his 'great new deal'? Fri, 12:30: RT…

  • Post a new comment


    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 1 comment