Mary Branscombe (marypcb) wrote,
Mary Branscombe
marypcb

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
Subscribe

  • My tweets

    Tue, 12:01: RT @ hzeffman: Decision came after a meeting with Nick Brown, Labour's chief whip, this morning. Labour sources say Starmer told…

  • My tweets

    Sun, 15:28: when you are reading the last book in a series & it is SO GOOD that you have to read it at full speed but it is also SO GOOD…

  • My tweets

    Sat, 13:17: RT @ cstross: ALL HAIL BREXIT FOR LEADING US TO THE SUNLIT UPLANDS POPULATED BY HAPPY BRITISH FISH EATING HAPPY BRITISH CHEESE AND…

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 1 comment