2.
Sausages, coffee, chicken and the web: Establishing new trust metrics for scholarly communication <ul><li>Eduserv Foundation Symposium 2008 </li></ul>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.’

5.
~

6.
Internet Trust

7.
“ Internet Trust Anti-Pattern” <ul><li>System is started by self-selecting core of high-trust technologists (or specialists of some sort) </li></ul><ul><li>System is touted as authority-less, non-hierarchical, etc.- But this is not true (see A) </li></ul><ul><li>The unwashed masses start using the system. </li></ul><ul><li>The system nearly breaks under the strain of untrustworthy users. </li></ul><ul><li>Regulatory systems are put into place in order to restore order. Sometimes they are automated, sometimes not. </li></ul><ul><li>System is again touted as authority-less, non-hierarchical, etc. But this is not true (see E). </li></ul>

8.
Trust: The Internet User Problem <ul><li>Subjected to: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Spam </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Viruses/Trojans </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Phishing </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Urban myths </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Dodgy content </li></ul></ul><ul><li>And they don’t realize that they have a general trust problem! </li></ul>Yet.

9.
Trust: The Publisher Problem <ul><li>Value proposition being questioned: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Distribution </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Sales/Marketing </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Editorial//Production </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Accused of profiteering </li></ul><ul><li>Content comparatively hidden </li></ul><ul><li>Brand increasingly hidden </li></ul><ul><li>Deprecation of intermediaries (”stovepiping”) </li></ul>

10.
Trust: The Librarian Problem <ul><li>Value proposition being questioned: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Ownership v.s. Access </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Organization, Categorization </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Curation, Preservation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Awareness, Outreach </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Content comparatively hidden </li></ul><ul><li>Brand increasingly hidden </li></ul><ul><li>Deprecation of intermediaries (”stovepiping”) </li></ul>

11.
Publisher: Icon Books ISBN: 184046531X

12.
Doesn’t scale Increases systemic risk Local Global <ul><li>Through personal acquaintance </li></ul><ul><li>Sometimes Transitive </li></ul><ul><li>Extends trust through proxy </li></ul><ul><li>Proxy transitively extends trust to “strangers” </li></ul>

13.
Not enforceable Subject to abuse Horizontal Vertical <ul><li>Amongst equals </li></ul><ul><li>Little possibility of coercion </li></ul><ul><li>Within hierarchy (possibly through deference) </li></ul><ul><li>Coercion can be used to enforce behavior </li></ul>

14.
Internet Trust v.s. Scholarly Trust Vertical Horizontal Local Global Internet Trust Scholarly Trust

15.
Avoiding the Internet Trust Anti-Pattern

17.
The Connection? <ul><li>Their success is largely attributable to their early adoption of simple “trust metrics” </li></ul><ul><li>Based on user-provided “stealth metadata” </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Volunteered </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Inferred </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Resulting in a built-in “social feedback loop”. </li></ul>

18.
The Problems? <ul><li>Trust metrics restricted to their particular site. </li></ul><ul><li>Trust metric context is still primitive. </li></ul>

19.
Web 2.0 is about trust

23.
Implications <ul><li>What person X is blogging </li></ul><ul><li>What person X is bookmarking- on several social bookmarking sites (e.g. del.isio.us, Connotea) </li></ul><ul><li>What person X is listening to (e.g. Last.FM) </li></ul><ul><li>What person X is taking pictures of (e.g. Flickr) </li></ul><ul><li>What person X's travel schedule is (e.g. iCal) </li></ul><ul><li>What books X is reading or planning on reading (e.g. Amazon wish lists) </li></ul>

25.
Implications (Academic) <ul><li>See the realtime annotated bibliography of Dr. W </li></ul><ul><li>Show all the ways in which people that you trust have categorized resource X </li></ul><ul><li>See how your taxonomy compares to the taxonomy of Dr. Y </li></ul><ul><li>See all the resources that your research group is categorizing as Z </li></ul>

27.
But Web 2.0 is the problem too...

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

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

62.
Industry Precedents

67.
The publishing process is invisible

71.
Early Modern Internet

76.
[email_address]