Credibility on the web

It seems as though there is some misunderstanding about an event that we are co-hosting on January 21 and 22, 2005, on the topic of credibility on the web.  The event is called “Blogging, Journalism, and Credibility: Battleground and Common Ground” and is co-hosted by us at the Berkman Center at Harvard Law School, the Shorenstein Center at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, and the American Library Association.  Here’s the idea, at least as I (as just one of the organizers) think about what we’re trying to do (which is why I’m dropping the “we” for this blog post).  

Among a number of other related issues, I am interested in the issues of credibility, trustworthiness, and accountability on the Internet. Whom can we trust online? How do we build trust online?

Over the past few years, the rise of citizen journalism — call it blogging, if you prefer, or call it social forms of media — has given rise to what I consider a very healthy discussion about the credibility, trustworthiness, and accountability of sources of information of all sorts, but particularly on the Internet.  Some of this discussion has arisen when “professional”? journalists have messed up, and citizen journalists have pointed it out; or when citizen journalists have broken important stories, one way or the other, that the pros were missing. 

Some of this discussion has arisen because the pros (and other observers) have criticized the citizen journalists for being an unaccountable, chattering echo chamber.  Some of it has been prompted by people overwhelmed by an exploding number of information sources online who feel at a loss for how to sort it all out (and those, perhaps, yet to experience the joys of RSS). 

Some of it is foreshadowed by the hypergrowth of extensions of the blogosphere, like podcasting, which point to new forms of disaggregation in the production, dissemination, and enjoyment of information — the explosion of social media. Whatever the cause and whatever the effect, there’s a lot to sort out.  The story is still breaking.  And whatever the outcome, I think the process of rethinking credibility online is a very productive one, whether for those who work for large professional news outfits and those who write or speak with the unedited voice of a single person.

Nobody has a monopoly on credibility on the web.  Lots of people have reasonable claims to credibility of various sorts and from various angles.  I can point to loads of mistrust and mutual critiques among the parties involved — as well as reflection, self-study, and occasional soul-searching by different parties on their own (including conferences for journalists alone, like the recent Nieman conference, and a growing number of blogging-related conferences, like BloggerCon) — but I’ve seen many fewer attempts for people from different perspectives to come together.  My hope is for this small discussion, surely one of many and hopefully one of many more to come, to be an honest, productive attempt for people with high hopes for credibility, trustworthiness, and accountability online to come reason together for a day or so.  The format for this discussion is almost completely open discussion time, with only brief statements and light coordination from the organizers and those who have been doing some writing and other preparation in advance of the event.  

And to the issue of who we’ve invited: I don’t believe that we, or any group we might convene, have a monopoly on talking about credibility on the web.  The notion for this event is to pull together a group of people who are involved in the study and practice of journalism and blogging.  The most important thing we are looking for from attendees is that they be honest, reflective, and constructive in their attempts to work together on this issue of credibility online. 

There’s no way that we can include everyone in a roundtable discussion who ought to be at this table.  We will surely not have succeeded perfectly; we are sharply limited by space and money; and we know that, unlike with the free, open events we host regularly, there will be people disappointed not to be invited to this one.  (So, apologies in advance on this score.)  Our best effort here is to hold this particular discussion in as open a format as we can, through a live webcast, an IRC channel, wifi in the room for blog entries, and the like.

For alternate viewpoints to my own, you might consider the thread in the comments section of the Participants page of the conference blog and also two posts from invited participant Dave Winer, here and here.

I am re-assured by the thought that, whatever its strengths and whatever its shortcomings, this event is but one in a series of conversations, both in real space and in virtual space, that seek to move the ball forward on this important topic — to make the web more credible, to make it harder for people to fool others online, to make the Internet more accountable — before it’s too late.

Our democracy depends upon it.