🚀 go-pugleaf

I like a 'confidence' factor applied in many different ways; and I
believe  'Scope' covers references, - even bias - if observing obvious
ref omissions.

Is it really necessary to _judge_ the fairness of a site?   The
difference between fairness of information and confidence of information
is almost the difference between truth and trust.  I hate 'truth-'
seeking with a passion, but like the whole idea of long term confidence
or trust.   Truth is as irrational an expectation on the internet as it
is anywhere: does this site tell you _everything_?, has this newspaper
report told the _whole_ story.

One thing about links: has anyone located examples of intelligent
linking, namely, where links change based on traffic?  This creates a
kind of user-based confidence or 'herd' bias - if that matters.

GC (a databas'r)

On Wed, 21 Oct 1998 12:09:21 -0400 Brian Pomeroy <lunar@VOICENET.COM>
writes:
>At 09:24 AM 10/21/98 -0400, you wrote:
>>Diane,
>>
>>I teach a team presentation "Navigating the Internet", we use six
>criteria
>>to evaluate an Internet resource.
>>
>>Authority ~ Who is the creator?
>>Currency ~  How up to date is it?
>>Quality/Reliability ~ Is the info accurate?
>>Scope ~ How inclusive is the info?
>>Fairness ~ Is the material biased?
>>Aesthetic Quality ~ Organization, style/design, technical
>capabilities
>
>This is an excellent summary of validation points.  However, I would
>expand
>on the first point to define the "creator" as the author, publisher
>and
>(stretching it) references used.  In healthcare, many authors are
>