Comments for Warning sounded on web's future »
Posted By pagey 1 year, 3 months ago in Science & TechnologyThe internet needs a way to help people work out if they can trust what they read online, says the World Wide Web's creator.
Read Full Story at news.bbc.co.uk »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 11
-
blablablaComment removed: Retracted by user
-
50%
Wolfie20071 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"he internet needs a way to help people work out if they can trust what they read online, says the World Wide Web's creator."
Reply
Why does the internet need to do this since I haven't seen any movement to to help people trust what they read in newspapers, magazines or books. Also, what about helping people figure out what's true on television, the movies or the radio. This appears to be nothing but a pitch for censorship on the web. I for one don't need to be told what is or isn't true.-
Neutral
brettodactyl1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think the issue isn't so much censorship, but credibility. It's really not so different from online shopping. There are certain seals of approval, such as from the Better Business Bureau, and security certificates that I always look for when shopping from a new online store.
Reply
What I would do would be to have a review process for various types of news sources and reference articles, and if the site is approved it simply gets a stamp for its page. I think it's particularly easy for false scientific information to be posted to the web, and many people don't know the difference.
A lack of credibility is why teachers in school often limit the students' use of the Internet as a resource. I am highly in favor or something that would increase the overall credibility of the web, while still allowing regular people with a message to share their thoughts.-
blablablaComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
-
-
blablablaComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
-
Neutral
pagey1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Remember this one
Reply
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/photos/tourist.asp-
100%
nostalgia1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Or this one
Reply
http://www.propeller.com/story/2008/08/31/is-sarah...
AND still no banner at the top from Propeller saying it was totally discredited
-
-
100%
Bkumm1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
In actuality, this is no more or less of a problem than it is in print, it's just easier and more to sift through.
Reply
I look at it like this: if pagey or Neophile or James Marcus post something I'm more likely to believe that it is accurate than I would be if I_Love_Spam posts a submission. Secondly, if the submission is from Uncle Bob Loves Jesus.com I'm less likely to assume that it is accurate than I would be if it is from the Wall Street Journal.com. Lastly, one needs to maintain some sense of credulity. For instance, the story about Sarah Palin being the grandmother and not the mother of the last child in her family may or may not be true, but it stretches credulity. It should be investigated, but one can not say if it is true or not. Similarly, to suggest that Barack Obama hates the United States because his ex-pastor did, also stretches credulity.
To not use politics as an example, or at least not the individuals involved, let's take the "Bush Doctrine". Now, it may be true that Charles Krauthammer coined the phrase and meant something different than what the phrase has come to mean in most circles. That does not negate the fact that he over-riding principle of the Bush Doctrine is preemptive war, as it is defined today. But, we have multiple opposing sources on the Internet telling us different things, so people can "prove" that the Bush Doctrine that Charles Gibson articulated is not the "right one". However, I liken that to the word "faggot" (which I'll bet gets busted by the autocensor). Once upon a time, and you can still find the definition on line, the word meant a loosely bundled bunch of sticks for a fire. Now, when someone uses the word, it is usually meant in a derogatory way towards homosexuals. But, a person could argue, using information from the Internet, that they didn't mean it that way. And you couldn't prove them wrong.
So, that's another danger. Sorry for the rant, this is an important subject to me. -
loading ...
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.