Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Berners-Lee Wants Truth Ratings For Websites

Posted by timothy on from the that's-a-lie dept.

holy_calamity writes "While introducing the new World Wide Web Foundation Tim Berners-Lee made also asked for a system of ratings to help people distinguish truth and untruth online. 'On the web the thinking of cults can spread very rapidly,' he said, saying that 'there needed to be new systems that would give websites a label for trustworthiness once they had been proved reliable sources.'"

17 of 535 comments (clear)

  1. Just what we need... by cabjf · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...a truthiness rating!

    1. Re:Just what we need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'd mod you +1 truthy (but I could be making this up).

    2. Re:Just what we need... by Ioldanach · · Score: 5, Informative

      Truthiness is a creation of Steven Colbert of the Colbert Report, and was Merriam-Webster's 2006 word of the year

    3. Re:Just what we need... by cthulu_mt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "What is Truth?" Asked Pontius Pilate as he washed his hands...

      --
      Virginia is for lovers. EVE is for griefers.
    4. Re:Just what we need... by QZTR · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Which, if I am correct..."

      You're aren't correct.

      --
      To quote LongNoi "QZTR was right and won't leave me alone because I called him a moron when I was wrong" FYS
  2. This article is not true. by mraiser · · Score: 5, Funny

    There. Now you know.

  3. I can get you ratings readily enough... by FooAtWFU · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... but for Facts, not Truth. If it's truth you're looking for, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall.

    --
    The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
  4. And Then What? by Alex+Pennace · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What is to prevent any such proposed system from becoming yet another popularity contest plagued by those who want to quash unpopular ideas?

    1. Re:And Then What? by Nasajin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Absolutely nothing. The system is exactly a popularity contest, where truth is determined democratically, rather than by actual relationship to reality.

    2. Re:And Then What? by SimonGhent · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Im curious as to how sites that discuss UFO and/or paranormal phenomena will be rated.

      How about religion: Christianity, Islam, Scientology?

      How about acupuncture or homeopathy?

      Or to be really contentious how about OS feature debates?

      We're talking about a grey area that has little to no concrete evidence for or against. How do you judge truth in this sites except by personal opinion?

      Quite!

      --
      simon
    3. Re:And Then What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And that, my friends, is the exact problem with Web 2.0 (for lack of a better term). Allow "democratic" control of content, and all content eventually converges on boobs and beer, because it is the lowest common denominator for a lot of Internet users. I need only cite digg.com for this point.

  5. Re:I can get you ratings readily enough... by spiffyman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    TFA is /.ed, and MirrorDot's not behaving, so this is a shot in the dark. But I'm reasonably sure we've heard something like this before, and the idea is just as bad now as it was. Berners-Lee is smart enough to know that all systemic rating scales are subject to being gamed. I fail to see how embedding such a scale in the protocol would help, and it's not unlikely that it would hurt the situation.

    Moreover, the WWW as he created it - being a very dumb platform - allows us to implement such a scale at a high level, using user input and so forth.There are already a ton of services that do something very like this. Hell, I can trust the top 10 things on del.icio.us more than I can trust random Google results.

    I donno. I just fail to see the point of this. Yeah, people's capacity to care about facts and details appears to be limited, but I don't think this is the solution.

    --
    So you can laugh all you want to...
  6. Re:A rating system can't overcome stupidity by Sobrique · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The best argument against any democratic system is a 5 minute conversation with the 'average voter'. This seems little different in that regard.

  7. Slashdot getting a truth rating? by MistaE · · Score: 5, Funny

    Quick! Someone hide kdawson!

  8. Re:Fancy way of saying PageRank doesn't work... by Chris+Rhodes · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The onion is far more accurate than your average editorial page.

  9. Re:Truth rate this post by I+cant+believe+its+n · · Score: 5, Funny

    Ok, let's truth rate (True or False answers only) the following sentence in this post:

    "This sentence is false."

    I'd have to give it 3 trues out of 5 possible.

    --
    She made the willows dance
  10. Research shows ratings would have inverse effect by IdahoEv · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ... for conservatives, at least.

    Consider this research, which I saw yesterday - possibly the most depressing thing I have read in terms of seeing rational politics and governance in my lifetime. Conservatives are more likely to believe something that supports their belief system after it has been refuted by experts.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/14/AR2008091402375_pf.html

    For example, when shown a clip of George Bush in 2003 claiming Iraq had WMD's, 35% of conservatives agree. When shown the same clip plus the 2004 Duelfer report (compiled by a Bush appointee) which demonstrated that Iraq did not have WMD's, suddenly 64% of conservatives believe the weapons were there.

    The same effect was seen with statements about tax revenue. In general, when shown expert testimony that contradicts preestablished beliefs, conservatives' beliefs go the other way: experts in general have negative credibility with half the country.

    This was not true of liberals: they tended to be unswayed or slightly convinced by expert testimony.

    --
    I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.