DRAFT Minutes: Credible Web CG (09 May 2018)


  1. Minutes from previous weeks
  2. How to Scribe
  3. Calendar
  4. Slides for W3C Advisory Committee meeting next week
  5. Demos?
  6. Intros with assessment of where you see yourself in the main topic areas presented


  1. RESOLVED: Approve minutes of 18 April
  2. RESOLVED: Approve minutes of 25 April
  3. RESOLVED: Approve minutes of 2 May


# [Sandro Hawke] Agenda:

# [Cheryl Langdon-Orr] Present +

# [Reto Gmür] present +

# [Scott Yates] present +

Minutes from previous weeks

# [Sandro Hawke] PROPOSED: Approve minutes of 18 April

# [Cheryl Langdon-Orr] BTW 2 things I am also in another meeting (overlap can’t be avoided but at least I am awake ;-) Also I have scheduled Internet outages tonight between midnight and 0600 and it is only just after 0300 here tonight… So if I drop off you know why ;-)

# [Sandro Hawke] RESOLVED: Approve minutes of 18 April

# [Cheryl Langdon-Orr] no objections to minutes

# [Sandro Hawke] PROPOSED: Approve minutes 25 April

# [Sandro Hawke] RESOLVED: Approve minutes of 25 April

# [Sandro Hawke] PROPOSED: Approve minutes of 2 May

# [Sandro Hawke] RESOLVED: Approve minutes of 2 May

# [Jon Udell] Where’s the doc @Sandro Hawke refers to?

How to Scribe

# [An Xiao Mina]

# Sandro Hawke: Talks through scibing notes.


# [Ed Bice] Thx Annette!!

# … Anything to announce?

# [Cheryl Langdon-Orr] I have another audio channel open and am interacting with another meeting, so prefer NOT to *re intro myself again this week… again Google me ;-)*

# An Xiao Mina says: we’ll be at RightsCon in Toronto next week, there’s a number of panels related to this topic, pasting the link

# Sandro Hawke says: any other announcements?

# [Ed Bice]

# … The other upcoming thing I want to remind people of the face to face poll. The hope is to have something in SF in July

# [smyles]

# … Looking like the last couple days of July work for everyone who replied, but several people still haven’t replied. If you haven’t replied please do. If you can attend remotely fill in those times

# [Cheryl Langdon-Orr] Obviously from AU I will be remote ;-)

# … Remote is better than nothing

# [Cheryl Langdon-Orr] I can make it work :-)

# … The caveat on on July 31st is that it overlaps with the decentralised web summit. I’ve been talking to those organisers but that day is an invitation only day and there’s no overlap with our folks

# [Ed Summers] RightsCon Program:

# [Cheryl Langdon-Orr] I do now have a probable clash on July 19 (so 18th in your doodle

# … Deciding before or after that weekend, the question may be about space. We’ll ask the people who were offering to provide space

# … AirBnB and Facebook offered

# [An Xiao Mina] The two panels/workshops I mentioned that may be of interest to this group: and Here’s a third one I’m on that’s tangentially related to indicator work but very related to content credibility:

# … I will follow up with them

# … Anybody else have space in SF they think would be useful?

# [Ed Bice] @ed clarifies that shrug means that in a pinch we could host here.

Slides for W3C Advisory Committee meeting next week

# [An Xiao Mina] And we have a decent relationship with Northwestern University’s SF campus, which is centrally located and hosted the first Credibility Coalition meeting

#Sandro Hawke says: that there will be a panel next week at the AC meeting on fake news - I have a slot on that panel.

#Sandro Hawke: presents draft slides for this to the group

# [Cheryl Langdon-Orr] I doubt End users would “just Trust AI: but it needs to be part of the ‘toolkit’

# [Cheryl Langdon-Orr] agility demands that

# [Tzviya Siegman] /me do you q+ here?

# David Karger says: he wants to question the broader goal of how people control the information is coming to them…

# Tzviya Siegman says: we need to consider how we take the concept of bias into consideration as we write these indicators

# [Ed Bice] rephrased: we come with our own biases and we need to inoculate against this in the process to the extent possible.

# [Cheryl Langdon-Orr] That makes sense to me

# David Karger says: not just “statistically”

# Reto Gmür says: he is an epistemological relativist - but this is the intellectual basis for dodging the problem

# [Cheryl Langdon-Orr] yes gaming is a consistent risk factor

# [Cheryl Langdon-Orr] multi-factorial approach?

#David Karger says: that statistical indicators are problematic - shouldn’t limit to a statistical approach - gives example of individual trust.

#Reto Gmür says: that transferable warrants to credible content

# [An Xiao Mina] for slide 6, simple sentence change could be: “Content and content providers may have observable features that signal credibility.” – basically just remove “statistically”

# David Karger says: centralized whitelist/blacklist are useful, but must be under control of enduser

# David Karger says: working on a taxonomy of reasons to believe things - you have talked about reasons for things to be credible has focused on indicators inside the content - but there are a range of indicators that go to the expertise of a content creator. Goes on to discuss the merits of whitelists and blacklists - should embrace these IF they are in the control of the user.

# [Reto Gmür] What I ssuggested is Transparents Warrants to Believe

# Ed Bice says: reputation has assessment of source, reputation as how someone behaves in the system – like constantly posting indicators opposed by 99% of other writers – that’s another component of reputation,

#David Karger says: its turtles all the way down*

# [Cheryl Langdon-Orr] Excellent points on both reputation and its role in trust development

# [smyles] q+

# Sandro Hawke says: transparency might be a 4th project area, including trust project

# [Cheryl Langdon-Orr] I think that seems reasonable @Sandro Hawke

#David Karger says: the question of whether anyone - including the source themselves - should be able to annotate that source.

# [An Xiao Mina] using karger’s language, maybe the self-annotation/transparency work is one part of the turtles

# [An Xiao Mina] we could use hypothesis to give feedback on slides ;)

# [Sandro Hawke] PROPOSED: Slides at reflect our understanding of this group, modulo comments made in this meeting

# [Sandro Hawke] +1

# [Annette Greiner] of the ??

# Sandro Hawke says: that he welcomes feedback on the slides

# [Scott Yates] +1

# [Jon Udell] +1

# [Reto Gmür] +0 still feel a section missing, the one about improving discourse, and increasing transparency


# [Reto Gmür] Demo: (and chrome plugin)

Intros with assessment of where you see yourself in the main topic areas presented

# [Cheryl Langdon-Orr] My interests stick with Trust Reputation Transparency aspects of our work

# [Ed Bice] +1

# [Amy Zhang] Me: MIT CSAIL. My interests: both credibility signals and reputation. happy to take on a role where it is needed, modulo more information on what that entails.

# [Annette Greiner] Annette Greiner says I’m from Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, working as a web app developer/data vis person at NERSC ( I’m having a hard time disentangling the three project areas, but leaning most toward the corroboration side of things.

# [Cheryl Langdon-Orr] about me look at

# [Davide Ceolin] Davide Ceolin says I’m from CWI Amsterdam. I’m mostly interested in inspection and reputation, but corroboration is heavily connected to my work as well, so I’m waiting to see how the work in the three areas develops to decide.

# [An Xiao Mina] I’m An - very intellectually interested in all of these areas and see them as interconnected, but given my work as strategy lead at the Credibility Coalition, my work in this context squarely falls in the Inspection space. I liked the original framing of 1st party and 3rd party and would like to discuss that further. Already a co-chair of this CG and so am expecting to take an active role in this regard — representing CredCo research, facilitating conversations about indicators, thinking about collaborative approaches, ethical and journalistic considerations, etc.

# [Newton Calegari] I’m Newton, from I’m happy to contribute with the team working on the Inspection area.

# [Reto Gmür] Some first notes after a discussion with Sam Boyes on discourse (refrences, etc.) and transparency

# [Farnaz Jahanbakhsh] I’m Farnaz, from MIT CSAIL. My interest is in reputation and trust.

# [Jon Udell] I’m Jon Udell with Hypothesis. Given that both Inspection and Corroboration imply annotation, I’m generally interested in what the role of web annotation ( should be. And I’m particularly focused on improving the quality and reach of the ClaimReview metadata that’s being pumped into the system by fact-checking organizations.

# [Cheryl Langdon-Orr] huge even I know there publications in the antipodes…

# [Scott Yates] I’m Scott Yates, Entrepreneur in Residence at CableLabs. I’m for sure interested in collaboration and being helpful to this group in ways like building calendars and lists that I’ve done, but it doesn’t make sense for me to be in a particular sub-group.

# [Cheryl Langdon-Orr] says at this stage rotate through topics

# [Ed Summers] I’m interested in how web archives are deployed as sources of credible information. Both inspection and corroboration are interesting to me since they both can involve the leveraging of web resources as evidence. If I had to pick I’d choose to work on the corroboration work, in particular as it relates to the way web resources are used as evidence when communicating provenance.

# [Ed Bice] I am Ed Bice from CredCo and Meedan - I am interested in indicators and reputation

# Tzviya Siegman says: that in her experience as a working group chair it might be more useful to group people around particular tasks rather than around the theory.

# [Ed Summers] (I wanted to +1 that, so I added it to the minutes)

# [Cheryl Langdon-Orr] breakout as tasks demand makes sense to me

# [Ed Bice] great Ed’s type alike

# Jon Udell says: what does the reference point look like for successful w3c project

# [Cheryl Langdon-Orr] Bye for now then…

# Sandro Hawke says: that although ClaimReview wasn’t a W3C effort, it’s an example of something that might have been.

# [Ed Summers] I was half wondering if it was rhetorical – did you have an answer?

# [Ed Summers] oops, i guess meeting has adjourned … til next time