If wherever we encountered new information, sentence by sentence, frame by frame, we could easily know the best thinking on it.
If we had confidence that this represented the combined wisdom of the most informed people–not as anointed by editors, but as weighed over time by our peers, objectively, statistically and transparently.
If this created a powerful incentive for people to ensure that their works met a higher standard, and made it perceptibly harder to spread information that didn’t meet that standard.
These goals are possible with today’s technologies.
They are the objectives of Hypothes.is.” This part sounds 100% relevant to health care, where live depend on these envisioned standards of information quality. Their 12 Principles, sort of a vision statement, almost read like a list of critical thinking criteria for assessing bias and authority in information, including: open, everywhere, nonprofit, neutral, community moderated, merit-based, pseudonymous, international,
transparent, longterm, accessible, and “work with the best.” There is one possibly jarring note in that list. I bet you can guess which one I’m thinking of. Pseudonymous & transparency in the same list seem just a tad contradictory, but there are good reasons for both. I might find this a bit more jarring following on the heels of hearing presentations from the folks at Writing History, whose project focused on open transparent peer review with complete identification of all commenters with their real life names. I do think this part is a dialog that is far from complete, and it will be interesting to see how it unfolds here. Writing History in the Digital Age: