Wed Sep 17, 2008 1:30PM EDT
See Comments (2)
Talk about a thorny question, right? But the man posing it is no less than Tim Berners-Lee, the founder of the Web itself.
On the Web, the thinking of cults can spread very rapidly and suddenly a cult which was 12 people who had some deep personal issues suddenly find a formula which is very believable ... a sort of conspiracy theory of sorts and which you can imagine spreading to thousands of people and being deeply damaging.
So, his proposal? A new system (or set of systems) that would label Web sites according to ... well, how truthful they are—maybe not just "a simple number like an IQ rating," he says, but perhaps "different organizations labeling Web sites in different ways."
All pretty vague—and of course, troubling. Indeed, the idea would probably be laughed off the Web were it not Tim Berners-Lee who was proposing it.
Of course, the natural question (already posed by many) is: Who'd get to decide whether a given site is trustworthy or not? Would there be a series of "truthiness" tribunals, made up of experts in different fields? (And of course, experts are never wrong.) An algorithm? Or just a Digg-like popularity contest? And Web sites would be labeled ... well, how, exactly? A thumbs-up or thumbs-down badge? A numeric rating? A color scale?
So I open it up to you, dear readers: Does Berners-Lee (who, after all, literally invented the Web) have a point? Is he nuts? How would a labeling scheme work, and who decides what's fact and what's fiction?
Related:
Warning sounded on web's future [BBC News]
[P.S.: Back in the mid-90s, when I was goofy young intern at Wired, I ran a fact-check on a story that quoted Berners-Lee. I'd never heard of him, and (via e-mail) I asked him about a rather outlandish statement in the story: that he'd "invented the Web." Berners-Lee actually replied—and his response? "Yes." Man, I wish I'd kept that e-mail...]
Join in the discussion. Here you'll see the comments in the order they were posted.
The whole concept is preposterous. Especially when it comes to highly contentious issues such as religion - which Berners-Lee brought up by talking about cults. The issue of the rating would be so political and divisive that not only would it anger people, it would be so biased that it wouldn't work. And if you think that it wouldn't be biased you have to be kidding yourself. Unfortunately there is no substitute for rational thought and I think that a rating system would cause LESS critical thinking because 'hey, I can trust it. It's a safe site!'. One last thing. If someone is willing to be sucked in by a cultish website, no 'truthfulness' ranking system is going to save them.
Please enable your browser's cookies to activate the My Tech column.
| Computers | Home Office | Wi-Fi & Networking | Phones & PDAs | Cameras & Camcorders | TV & Home Theater | Portable Audio |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 Posted by pei_dage on Thu Sep 3, 2009 8:05PM EDT Report Abuse
Trustworthy or truthfull? That is the question. Are these the same issue or different? Personally, something like a Good Housekeeping seal of approval might make the idea of going to a new unknown to me web site a bit less nerve wrecking. Whether the web site is safe or not is a much bigger issue to me than whether or not what they say is truthful. I take care to protect my computers and their data. This is a much bigger issue than is the truthyness of some wacko site... I can dedcide on truth vs falsehoods, but could use help is determining the safety of new untested web sites.