Sausages, coffee, chicken and the web: Establishing new trust metrics for scholarly communication

Loading...

Flash Player 9 (or above) is needed to view presentations.
We have detected that you do not have it on your computer. To install it, go here.

0 comments

Post a comment

    Post a comment
    Embed Video
    Edit your comment Cancel

    3 Favorites & 1 Event

    Sausages, coffee, chicken and the web: Establishing new trust metrics for scholarly communication - Presentation Transcript

    1.  
    2. Sausages, coffee, chicken and the web: Establishing new trust metrics for scholarly communication
      • Eduserv Foundation Symposium 2008
      Geoffrey Bilder Director of Strategic Initiatives
    3. symposium |simˈpōzēəm| noun ( pl. -sia |-zēə| or -siums ) a conference or meeting to discuss a particular subject. • a collection of essays or papers on a particular subject by a number of contributors. • a drinking party or convivial discussion, esp. as held in ancient Greece after a banquet (and notable as the title of a work by Plato). ORIGIN late 16th cent. (denoting a drinking party): via Latin from Greek sumposion , from sumpotēs ‘fellow drinker,’ from sun- ‘together’ + potēs ‘drinker.’
    4.  
    5. ~
    6. Internet Trust
    7. “ Internet Trust Anti-Pattern”
      • System is started by self-selecting core of high-trust technologists (or specialists of some sort)
      • System is touted as authority-less, non-hierarchical, etc.- But this is not true (see A)
      • The unwashed masses start using the system.
      • The system nearly breaks under the strain of untrustworthy users.
      • Regulatory systems are put into place in order to restore order. Sometimes they are automated, sometimes not.
      • System is again touted as authority-less, non-hierarchical, etc. But this is not true (see E).
    8. Trust: The Internet User Problem
      • Subjected to:
        • Spam
        • Viruses/Trojans
        • Phishing
        • Urban myths
        • Dodgy content
      • And they don’t realize that they have a general trust problem!
      Yet.
    9. Trust: The Publisher Problem
      • Value proposition being questioned:
        • Distribution
        • Sales/Marketing
        • Editorial//Production
      • Accused of profiteering
      • Content comparatively hidden
      • Brand increasingly hidden
      • Deprecation of intermediaries (”stovepiping”)
    10. Trust: The Librarian Problem
      • Value proposition being questioned:
        • Ownership v.s. Access
        • Organization, Categorization
        • Curation, Preservation
        • Awareness, Outreach
      • Content comparatively hidden
      • Brand increasingly hidden
      • Deprecation of intermediaries (”stovepiping”)
    11. Publisher: Icon Books ISBN: 184046531X
    12. Doesn’t scale Increases systemic risk Local Global
      • Through personal acquaintance
      • Sometimes Transitive
      • Extends trust through proxy
      • Proxy transitively extends trust to “strangers”
    13. Not enforceable Subject to abuse Horizontal Vertical
      • Amongst equals
      • Little possibility of coercion
      • Within hierarchy (possibly through deference)
      • Coercion can be used to enforce behavior
    14. Internet Trust v.s. Scholarly Trust Vertical Horizontal Local Global Internet Trust Scholarly Trust
    15. Avoiding the Internet Trust Anti-Pattern
    16.  
    17. The Connection?
      • Their success is largely attributable to their early adoption of simple “trust metrics”
      • Based on user-provided “stealth metadata”
        • Volunteered
        • Inferred
      • Resulting in a built-in “social feedback loop”.
    18. The Problems?
      • Trust metrics restricted to their particular site.
      • Trust metric context is still primitive.
    19. Web 2.0 is about trust
    20.  
    21.  
    22.  
    23. Implications
      • What person X is blogging
      • What person X is bookmarking- on several social bookmarking sites (e.g. del.isio.us, Connotea)
      • What person X is listening to (e.g. Last.FM)
      • What person X is taking pictures of (e.g. Flickr)
      • What person X's travel schedule is (e.g. iCal)
      • What books X is reading or planning on reading (e.g. Amazon wish lists)
    24.  
    25. Implications (Academic)
      • See the realtime annotated bibliography of Dr. W
      • Show all the ways in which people that you trust have categorized resource X
      • See how your taxonomy compares to the taxonomy of Dr. Y
      • See all the resources that your research group is categorizing as Z
    26.  
    27. But Web 2.0 is the problem too...
    28.  
    29.  
    30.  
    31.  
    32. Average Articles Read per year per University Faculty Member *280 with outliers Figure from www.dlib.org/dlib/october03/king/10king.html
    33. Average Minutes per Article by University Faculty Member Average Minutes Per Article Figure from www.dlib.org/dlib/october03/king/10king.html
    34. Paucity of heuristics
    35. We proto-librarians are informed with much fanfare in library school that librarians have a better sense for “ source authority and quality” than the average joe, and that the information sources we choose are therefore better than those the average joe chooses when left alone to choose sources. One would think that a profession that makes sweeping claims like this would spend a lot more time than it does teaching students how to evaluate sources. Leaving that Achilles heel aside, however… Dorothea Salo http://cavlec.yarinareth.net/
    36. We publishers will talk with much fanfare to anyone who will listen that publishers have a better sense for “source authority and quality” than the average joe, and that the information sources we choose to publish are therefore better than those the average joe chooses to publish . One would think that a profession that makes sweeping claims like this would spend a lot more time than it does providing mechanisms to help readers evaluate sources. Leaving that Achilles heel aside, however… Geoffrey Bilder
    37. http://www.laspositascollege.edu/library/magazines_journals.php
    38. Susan E. Beck Collection Development Coordinator New Mexico State University Library http://lib.nmsu.edu/instruction/evalcrit.html
    39. ~ www.brown.edu/~gbilder/history/index.html www.brown.edu/history/index.html
    40. .gov .edu .org .com
    41. https
    42. http://www.foo.com
    43.  
    44. Citation source pioneer credit leads eponym Background FutureWork Refutation Support Methodology Data Generalize Specialize Abstraction Example Formalization Application Argument deduction induction analogy intuition solution Summarization Detail AlternateView Rewrite Explanation Simplification Complication Update Correction Continuation Comment critical supportive RelatedWork misrepresents vacuum ignores is Superseded By is Refuted By is Supported By redundant ProblemPosing trivial unimportant impossible ill-posed solved ambitious Thesis trivial unimportant irrelevant redherring contradict dubious counterexample inelegant simplistic arbitrary unmotivated Argumentation invalid insufficient immaterial misleading alternative strawman Data inadequate dubious ignores irrelevant inapplicable misinterpreted Style boring unimaginative incoherent arrogant rambling awkward Randy Trigg http://www.workpractice.com/trigg/thesis-chap4.html
    45. nature nike pepsi apple
    46. We want to know
    47.  
    48.  
    49.  
    50.  
    51.  
    52.  
    53.  
    54.  
    55.  
    56.  
    57.  
    58.  
    59.  
    60.  
    61.  
    62. Industry Precedents
    63.  
    64.  
    65.  
    66.  
    67. The publishing process is invisible
    68.  
    69.  
    70.  
    71. Early Modern Internet
    72.  
    73.  
    74.  
    75.  
    76. [email_address]

    + Eduserv FoundationEduserv Foundation, 2 years ago

    custom

    2926 views, 3 favs, 1 embeds more stats

    A presentation by Geoffrey Bilder of CrossRef at th more

    More info about this document

    © All Rights Reserved

    Go to text version

    • Total Views 2926
      • 2859 on SlideShare
      • 67 from embeds
    • Comments 0
    • Favorites 3
    • Downloads 35
    Most viewed embeds
    • 67 views on http://www.eduserv.org.uk

    more

    All embeds
    • 67 views on http://www.eduserv.org.uk

    less

    Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
    Flag as inappropriate

    Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate. If needed, use the feedback form to let us know more details.

    Cancel
    File a copyright complaint
    Having problems? Go to our helpdesk?

    Categories