2019/Grants/Explicit credibility signal data on wikipedia

Title:

Explicit credibility signal data on wikipedia

Name:

Sandro Hawke

Wikimedia username:

Sandro_Hawke

E-mail address:

sandrow3.org

Resume:

• Larger project website: https://credweb.org
• Our analysis: https://www.w3.org/2018/10/credibility-tech/
• My resume: https://hawke.org/resume-2020/

Geographical impact:

global

Type of project:

Other

What is your idea?

Let's connect wikipedians to the emerging ecosystem of credibility data. Let's draw on their expertise and diligence to create community-sourced credibility data, letting individual wikipedians express credibility signals and interact with other credibility data. Let's give people the tools to see how this credibility data relates to their work on Wikipedia, giving them more insight into what sources are reliable. As wikipedians learn to navigate the credibility landscape, they can increasingly help others making their own decisions about source reliability.

Once this seed community has tested and refined the credibility signals process, this approach has the potential to rapidly grow to global scale.

Why is it important?

For Wikipedia, this idea promises to help in the fight against misinformation, making it easier for wikipedians and the broader world to collaborate in identifying credible and non-credible sources.

For the world at large, the stakes are much higher, as this approach has the potential to turn the tide against misinformation across all technology platforms.

Is your project already in progress?

We are developing the relevant concepts and tools (as seen at https://credweb.org) but have not begun deployment in the wikipedia community or tooling to work with wikipedia data feeds.

How is it relevant to credibility and Wikipedia? (max 500 words)

There are many connections between this Credibility Signals work and Wikipedia:

• Wikipedia has always needed to be able to separate fact from fiction. While it does this very well, these tools might make the task easier. Specifically, this can rapidly highlight which sources have unacceptably low credibility and help with sorting out why particularly sources are viewed as credible or not credible.
• Wikipedia has always needed to reduce harm done by careless and malicious users. It does this very well, but again, these tools might make the task easier, assisting in tracking and management of the reputation of users, which can be used in modifying their privileges.
• Because of its great expertise in these fields, the Wikipedia community is an excellent proving ground for these technologies. Flaws in the technologies that might eventually lead to failure in the broader media ecosystem are likely to be spotted very quickly by wikipedians, giving time to improve the designs before wider deployment.

What is the ultimate impact of this project?

tbd

Could it scale?

Yes, this plan is phenomenally scalable.

It is based on existing social practices, where each individual manages their own credibility assessment process (deciding what to believe), using what they can glean from their surroundings, including their social network. This process scales linearly with the number of individuals, with each individual deciding how much of their own resources to devote to each assessment they make. Adding computers and networking to this existing human process should greatly improve the efficiency and accuracy of this process, without altering this scaling behavior.

In its approach to decentralization, this design avoids any central bottleneck. Every individual and organization is free to deploy as much human and computing resources as they choose, without needing approval or support from us or anyone else. This allows the kind of scaling we see in the web and email, which are similarly decentralized, but much faster since the underlying infrastructure is already in place. If the system provides sufficient value to users, as we expect, this approach might grow to global scale in a matter of months.

The pace of scaling may also be quite rapid because it naturally spreads over social connections and social media. While it relies on software, which is often slow to develop, the software can come from any source, reducing this risk. Because of the social connections, the person-to-person spread may resemble the spread of ideas (memes) more than the slower (but still rapid) spread of technology platforms. At this point, in April 2020, we are perhaps all-to-familiar with the power of things which are able to spread person-to-person, out of control.

Why are you the people to do it?

I bring experience and expertise in all the necessary challenge areas, including credibility signals, community development, web application development, decentralized systems, and consensus process.

What is the impact of your idea on diversity and inclusiveness of the Wikimedia movement?

tbd

What are the challenges associated with this project and how you will overcome them?

tbd

How much money are you requesting?

10k USD, for this Wikipedia aspect of the Credibility Signals work

How will you spend the money?

To support my time on this work

How long will your project take?

2-8 months, depending on how community members react. They may adopt it quickly or need carefully-constructed on-ramps.

Have you worked on projects for previous grants before?

Yes, my work has been primarily grant funded for many years. Some highlights with web pages maintained by others:

• 2018 Google (see "W3C") https://www.blog.google/outreach-initiatives/google-news-initiative/elevating-quality-journalism/
• 2013 Knight Foundation https://knightfoundation.org/articles/introducing-crosscloud-project-get-your-data-out-silos/
• 2012 NSF https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=1313789
• 2005 DARPA http://xml.coverpages.org/ni2005-02-21-a.html