http://mathewingram.disqus.com/enTue, 19 Aug 2008 13:25:25 -0000http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/08/19/newscred-launches-public-beta/#comment-1650396Thanks for the thoughtful review Mathew.<br><br>@Blaise - thats a very good point. I think you can absolutely disagree with someone and still find the reporting to be credible. Perhaps I don't agree with your point of view, but if its presented in a transparent manner, fact-checked and with necessary disclosures, there's no reason to think its a poor quality article. That is an important distinction. <br><br>Also, your first point is something we are thinking about at NewsCred - some method of rating the raters!shafqatTue, 19 Aug 2008 13:25:25 -0000http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/08/19/newscred-launches-public-beta/#comment-1636329I guess the question is... how to you measure the credibility of those rating the authors credibility?<br><br>I suppose their answer would be that it'll balance itself out in the end...<br><br>But what about controversial topics? Like, abortion or the Iraq war or something. With a service like Wikipedia, the aggregate result of a multitude of contributions is often a compromise, which is ideal. Is a compromise always appropriate for a credibility ranking? I mean, if there's a disagreement about an author's credibility, then sure, a compromise is a great solution, but if there's disagreement about the *beliefs* the author holds, is that something different than credibility?<br><br>I mean, can you disagree with someone and still consider them credible? There's a difference between someone being dishonest or having their facts wrong, and someone just coming to a different conclusion than you based on the same credible sources of information.Blaise AlleyneTue, 19 Aug 2008 10:34:24 -0000