Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

WHO Bid To Regulate Health Sites

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the how-this-be-implemented dept.

Andy Smith writes "This BBC story reports on efforts by the World Health Organisation [?] to improve the quality of health-related web sites. They want a new TLD -- .health -- to be introduced. All .health sites would then be regulated by the WHO. Here's the press release, which predicts that 'dot health could soon be as well known as dot com'." It's quite an issue - do you want to be able to "trust" the health sites, assuming that's what regulation means, or do you worry more about the innovation of the sites being quashed by an organization?

6 of 157 comments (clear)

  1. What are you talking about? by thinthief · · Score: 4

    I don't understand your logic. Because traditional modern medicine doesn't have all the answers they can't have a TLD?

    The TLD will just mean certified by the WHO. If you trust the WTO you can trust .health sites (to some extent). If you don't trust the WTO, than just ignore the .health sites.

    For instance I don't trust the government to tell me the truth about a lot of issues, but I'm still glad there's a .gov, so I can go to irs.gov and d/l my tax returns without having to worry if irs.gov is REALLY the irs's web site or not.

    --
    http://overwhelmed.org
  2. Doesn't violate 1'st amendment by wiredog · · Score: 4

    Since, if you don't agree with WHO, you don't have to be in .health. After all, no one seriously thinks that .mil violates the 1st amend since it's restricted to US military? Or .edu being restricted to schools?

    --

    Best Slashdot Co
  3. Re:Regulated Top Level Domains by spellcheckur · · Score: 4

    ...and it sure would be nice to know that .sex and .xxx domains really will be qualified smut, not just the head of some high profile actress cut-and-pasted onto another body.

  4. Subdomains by redhog · · Score: 5

    Whst's wrong with .health.com? Why can't they just create a subdomain? Why do they need a topplevel domain? The system was intended to be hierarchical, not flat. And health-industries are industries, aren't they? Should be under .com!

    Btw, someone at some moment suggested here on /. that a good idea might be to have the price on domains raise with the numbers of domains an organisation wants - that way, the system would force hierarchy. I like the idea, but it is to easy to work around - just have an employee register the domain name on him/her, or a daughter-company...

    --
    --The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
    1. Re:Subdomains by Baki · · Score: 5

      Indeed. If the WHO wants to regulate and certify, than that information could use who.org and anything below it.

      Creating .health would set a precenende for hundreds and hunderds of toplevel domains.

  5. It's not just medicine.. by mpk · · Score: 4

    There are an awful lot of websites covering an awful lot of fields that appear to be "authoritative" at a casual glance, but that are actually riddled with inaccuracies, bias and half-truths.

    Admittedly, not all of them are as downright dangerous as giving out dodgy health information, but people still need to learn to be critical of the information they may find on the web. "I saw it on the Internet" is still used by some people as an indicator that information is somehow more authoritative than that received from other, possibly more reliable, sources. Just look at some of the fantastical assertions that appear in the average day's load of spam, from "This cannot be considered spam as it is in accordance with House Bill 1618" upwards, for a fine example of this.

    One of the problems with the Web these days is that nifty graphical design is still considered superior to accuracy of information, and J. Random Luser needs to work out that frames and Shockwave don't necessary mean that a site's an authority on its subject.