I've seen a couple of efforts lately to help determine who's credible online and though I understand the need and the motive, these attempts are fundamentally flawed and perhaps even more damaging than they are helpful.
The latest is Newscred and Techcrunch describes it today. I used a Techcrunch beta invite to poke around.
It's very simple -- though that's the problem; credibility isn't so simple. They list articles and you get to ...
Full Story »
Jarvis' post, like the TechCrunch post it begins by citing, is more of an idle speculation of what people tend to be like online than a serious review of the services he discusses. The thesis of both posts boils down to "where there are rating systems, there are trolls," which is true enough. But does no one use ratings for genuine praise, or to celebrate great journalism? Of course people do. He then makes a leap to suggest that Daylife, specifically by not asking readers to critically evaluate what they read, does a better job of "finding the good stuff" because "life insists on being messy." While I must admit to sharing some of his skepticism, I fail to see the reasoning here! (Disclosure: I am a developer for NewsTrust.)
