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
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
- 1 comment
- Post a new comment
- 1 comment
