Suggestions for new features to make WoT even more reliable

Post Reply
mange01
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2016 5:05 pm

Suggestions for new features to make WoT even more reliable

Post by mange01 » Mon Oct 31, 2016 5:05 pm

Hi,

I am impressed by WoT. I have a few suggestions for additional features to further improve the relaiability of this service:

1. Add "pseudo science", "hoax site" and "clickbait site", as possible motivation of the negative classifications.

2. Remove the "alternative or controversial drugs" motivation from positive classifications, or move it to negative.

3. Add "peer-reviewed science", "neutral experts" and "objective site classification" as motivation of the "excellent" grade.

4. Encourage people to motivate their choices by referring to good objective warning lists and other site classification list on the internet. Only pages on sites that have high WoT class can be used as source or motivation.

5. Make the content of your site free and open, available under Creative Commons license, and your software open source, perhaps aiming at one day integrating it with the Wikimedia projects (such as Wikipedia).

Motivation:
There are good warning lists on the Internet of hoax sites, pseudo science sites, clickbait sites, well-cited academic publications (with high impact factor), etc. Then WoT should have the same categories.

WoT would be even more trustworhty if it resembled Wikipedia more. where the most reliable articles rely on scientific published sources and not only on people's personal opinions and own arguments. Everything is about sources and neutrality when we talk about text trustworthyness. Truth can not only be decided by democratic votes. Commercial services are typically less neutral than non-commercial.

Most (but not all) alternative medicine sites rely on pseudo science and dubious commercials, but many of them still get good classification in WoT.

WoT is poor on small languages such as Swedish, but if good warning lists of Swedish sites could be the foundation, not so many votes would be required for each site.

Site-rater
Posts: 5839
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 7:48 pm

RE: Suggestions for new features to make WoT even more reliable

Post by Site-rater » Mon Oct 31, 2016 7:33 pm

Maybe alternative or controversial medicine should be split between neutral and suspicious, depending on context? Or is it better to add an appropriate additional tag such as Misleading claims or unethical to clarify more?
Regarding point 5, WOT used to publish source code at github.com/mywot until recently.

mange01
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2016 5:05 pm

RE: Suggestions for new features to make WoT even more reliable

Post by mange01 » Wed Nov 16, 2016 8:48 pm

Thank you for your response.

Why not remove "aternative medicine" and "opinions, politics, religion" as motivation, since these sites may be everything from red to green.

Why not add "Pseudo-science" as category for for example alternative medicin / health / nutrition sites with unsupported claims, for causeless conspiracy theories, etc? There are several lists of pseudo-science sites, anti-science sites, etc, that can be used as third party sources. Several well-known pseudo science sites get green from WOT:


Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests