Funny that there's a rating option at the base of your article.
neuraxon77
· 1 year ago
Duncan's lost the plot. Tim's desire for rating content has merit so long as there is an audit trail along with annotations for necessary citations. That's how the peer review process works in any field that matures, eventually professionals get given more weight and the good content rises to the top... most of the time. It's not that different to Techmeme. :)
TM
· 1 year ago
I respectfully disagree with your entire thesis. No one is saying we should stifle a "false opinion." No one is saying that we won't allow people to publish posts or blogs as they do today, on any topic they chose. The premise is that we should be able to easily identify credible news. Yes, credibility has subjective aspects but there are objective components as well - and those are the ones we can easily address using the websites you deem so useless. Objective fact checking, citation of sources, transparency - these are things we can and should measure. By merely introducing a 'scorecard' or a 'track record' for a news source, I don't think we've crossed the line to "global totalitarianism."
I will defend your right to have an opinion, but I think you will find I am not alone in thinking that it is you, Duncan, who may have lost the plot.
gregorylent
· 1 year ago
think of the web in twenty years, billions of sites, everybody with a blog and aggregator .. for sure classifications of worthiness will be developed, and even will be a big business.. it is just the logical extension of filtering, already showing up
gregorylent
· 1 year ago
oh, dang, i feel like such a sucker ... this was not about ideas, this was a headline and a story just to get page views ... silly me ... will have top remember that about inquisitr, it is a business first
Durn
· 1 year ago
I think it's pretty comical that you're spreading rumors about Palin without checking the facts, yet call Berners-Lee the one with the problem....
Can't wait for the election. People are going to go insane when Obama melts down.
Not A Rumor
· 1 year ago
Quotation:
On Aug. 29, The Boston Globe reported that Palin was open to teaching creationism in public schools. That’s true. She supports teaching creationism alongside evolution, though she has not actively pursued such a policy as governor.
In an Oct. 25, 2006, debate, when asked about teaching alternatives to evolution, Palin replied: “Teach both."
Dan
· 1 year ago
Ratings are exactly how sites like Slashdot and Reddit work. People submit things, and other people rate them. Inidivudal sites might be angry that their horrible design gets the ratings it deserves, but nobody else seems to think its unfair.
What I didn't see in "Sir Tim's" proposal was the idea that these ratings be government-sponsored or state-controlled. In fact, the article states that he and his team "concluded that a whole variety of different mechanisms was needed. "
So, what's to criticize here? I'd like to see a bit more detail before concluding that Berners-Lee is that far off track.
Pete
· 1 year ago
I think he has a good point here. Who decides what is 'true' or 'reliable' information? One only has to look at serious academia to see that it thrives on debate and differences of opinion on many things. Surely, rather than rating sources/sites for reliability it would be far better to encourage people to be critical in their own thinking and not simply take what they see/read at face value. It is perfectly possible to follow both sides of a debate online and see both a theory and its critique. What Tim was proposing would merely perpetuate the view that one can easily establish 'correct' information on 'approved' sites and would actually encourage people to disengage from checking things themselves and keeping a critical approach. Its that critical approach that needs to be encouraged, and Tim's proposal would not do that.
Notforme
· 1 year ago
Rate websites on whether they are credible or not? What do people think websites are? Do they know that a website is simply a conduit of information just like that other vehicle, the book? Would something credible enough to print be anything but credible on a web page? Or is the web some super mind control agent that is so radically more powerful than a simple book that it needs to be controlled by some entity? And what would that entity be?
J
· 1 year ago
This is how net already works! People vote with their feet by linking to pages they find 'credible' (or they like, which amounts to the same thing in your view). And most people use Google to find pages (truth) they don't know of yet. And Google works on the basis of 'votes' (links). Sigh. TBL is just suggesting a more transparent version, surely?
curiouslypersistent
· 1 year ago
I think this conflates truth with credibility. Truth is nebulous and is largely subjective. But truth/conjecture from one site can be more trustworthy than others, and I can see that is the argument behind ranking the source. It would never work though - aside from the gaming implications, mass opinion resorts to the lowest common denominator. Lolcats would rule the web
All Comments
I will defend your right to have an opinion, but I think you will find I am not alone in thinking that it is you, Duncan, who may have lost the plot.
Can't wait for the election. People are going to go insane when Obama melts down.
On Aug. 29, The Boston Globe reported that Palin was open to teaching creationism in public schools. That’s true. She supports teaching creationism alongside evolution, though she has not actively pursued such a policy as governor.
In an Oct. 25, 2006, debate, when asked about teaching alternatives to evolution, Palin replied: “Teach both."
What I didn't see in "Sir Tim's" proposal was the idea that these ratings be government-sponsored or state-controlled. In fact, the article states that he and his team "concluded that a whole variety of different mechanisms was needed. "
So, what's to criticize here? I'd like to see a bit more detail before concluding that Berners-Lee is that far off track.
One only has to look at serious academia to see that it thrives on debate and differences of opinion on many things. Surely, rather than rating sources/sites for reliability it would be far better to encourage people to be critical in their own thinking and not simply take what they see/read at face value. It is perfectly possible to follow both sides of a debate online and see both a theory and its critique. What Tim was proposing would merely perpetuate the view that one can easily establish 'correct' information on 'approved' sites and would actually encourage people to disengage from checking things themselves and keeping a critical approach.
Its that critical approach that needs to be encouraged, and Tim's proposal would not do that.