It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Warning sounded on web's future to separate rumours

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Warning sounded on web's future to separate rumours


news.bbc.co.uk

The internet needs a way to help people separate rumour from real science, says the creator of the World Wide Web.

Talking to BBC News Sir Tim Berners-Lee said he was increasingly worried about the way the web has been used to spread disinformation.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 05:51 PM
link   
I wonder if this will effect the web as we know it today , And what the possibility of something like this happening

news.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 06:02 PM
link   
This story is disinformation.

There is nothing but truth on the web. Just type what your looking for and you get the truth.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 06:53 PM
link   
I can understand Sir Tim's argument to an extent but any kind of scheme that attempts to accredit web sites will deservedly fail.

Whilst I trust Sir Tim's altruism, I'm not comfortable with the idea of some body deciding what's 'truth' and what isn't, even in the realms of academia and science. Take history and science, for example. Whilst dates &c might generally agreed on, it's rare that different countries agree on events that span the world stage. Isn't it said that 'history is written by the victors'? I'm fairly sure that the 'losers' will see the same events fairly differently. Which version of events is really true and which is really false? This kind is agreement isn't even limited to history as many current events give two versions of the same events. In science, whilst there are often competing theories to explain events, even in areas where there might be generally a single idea, it's a given that science is provisional and subject to change.

How would this be practical? Can you imagine the scale of this? Is some agency going to patrol and scour the internet looking for web sites to approve or disapprove? Or will every web site be expected to apply for this kind of accreditation? What happens if someone disagrees with the result and refuses to display their negative approval? What about countries beyond Europe or America who generally have a 'meh!' attitude to the way foot-stamping demands of the west - like China and Russia - are they really going to care or even agree with the findings of some regulation body. Look at the way China like to manage information going in and out of the country; are they going to agree with what the west says?

What about web designers and commercial websites? Are they really going to want to have to include some symbol of some kind on a website?

As I said at the start, I appreciate what Sir Tim's saying, but I don't understand how this could work at all.



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Merriman Weir
 

One thing that I could envision would be a rating system of sorts.
Websites could be classified according to something like this:

1.)Sites that relate historical facts
2.)Sites that relate current scientific thought
3.)Sites that deal in unproven theories
4.)Sites that reflect peoples opinion
5.)Sites that are spoofs
6.)Debate sites
7.)Sites that deal in speculation
8.)Sites that deal with interpretation of history

etc.
By no means are the above all-inclusive. Such a system would require quite a bit of thought. However, it could be sort of a "viewer beware" rating.
Yes, I agree that history is written by the victors. However, there are things that can be stated as historical fact.



new topics

 
0

log in

join