Why “IQ” for sites is a bad idea
Speaking yesterday about the creation of WWWFoundation , one of the founding fathers of WWW expressed his opinion on the development of the Internet. Namely, Tim Berners-Lee proposed to introduce a rating system for sites in terms of their “intelligence”, credibility and reliability of information in order to combat the spread of such science-like rumors as rumors about the dangers of BAC.
This seemingly sensible idea provoked friendly support in the media . Probably, in the collective consciousness, the Internet is still associated with some kind of information dump. Many people want someone to "restore order", and this position can be understood.
Although Tim Berners-Lee said that he “does not consider the assignment of a simple number as an IQ coefficient to be a good idea,” but instead suggests rating sites using a more complex methodology, but in fact, it’s about the same thing, only in other words. This is a kind of content assessment system to improve its overall quality - precisely in terms of semantic content.
')
But is it possible, and at what cost?
For example, New Scientist magazine reacted to these words of Tim Berners-Lee in a different way than other media. The journal editor unequivocally criticizes this proposal . In his opinion, no one is able to adequately assess the “credibility” of scientific information, because there are a great many controversial issues on which so far there is no one true opinion. For example, to take religious sites - how to evaluate their "authenticity" and "veracity"? From the point of view of Tim Berners-Lee, obviously, these sites should receive a minimum rating.
In addition, there are controversial issues even within the scientific community. In such a situation, the emergence of a rating system in any case will contribute to misleading people, distorting the objective picture, which is developed precisely in a reasoned discussion.
This seemingly sensible idea provoked friendly support in the media . Probably, in the collective consciousness, the Internet is still associated with some kind of information dump. Many people want someone to "restore order", and this position can be understood.
Although Tim Berners-Lee said that he “does not consider the assignment of a simple number as an IQ coefficient to be a good idea,” but instead suggests rating sites using a more complex methodology, but in fact, it’s about the same thing, only in other words. This is a kind of content assessment system to improve its overall quality - precisely in terms of semantic content.
')
But is it possible, and at what cost?
For example, New Scientist magazine reacted to these words of Tim Berners-Lee in a different way than other media. The journal editor unequivocally criticizes this proposal . In his opinion, no one is able to adequately assess the “credibility” of scientific information, because there are a great many controversial issues on which so far there is no one true opinion. For example, to take religious sites - how to evaluate their "authenticity" and "veracity"? From the point of view of Tim Berners-Lee, obviously, these sites should receive a minimum rating.
In addition, there are controversial issues even within the scientific community. In such a situation, the emergence of a rating system in any case will contribute to misleading people, distorting the objective picture, which is developed precisely in a reasoned discussion.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/40121/
All Articles