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.
Details matter: Web credibility
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.
-
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 https://t.co/9cYo9tw3dG 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
- 1 comment
- Post a new comment
- 1 comment
