# Re: Criticism of Kidcode (was Re: KidCode: Next steps )

Paul Francis (francis@cactus.slab.ntt.jp)
Fri, 23 Jun 95 13:29:02 JST

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Larry Masinter: "Whither URI: Revising the charter, disband URI?"
- Previous message: Alan Wexelblat: "Criticism of Kidcode (was Re: KidCode: Next steps )"
- Maybe in reply to: Martijn Koster: "Criticism of Kidcode (was Re: KidCode: Next steps )"
- Next in thread: Ronald E. Daniel: "Re: Criticism of Kidcode (was Re: KidCode: Next steps )"

    Date: Fri, 23 Jun 95 13:29:02 JST

    From: francis@cactus.slab.ntt.jp (Paul Francis)

    Message-Id: <9506230429.AA05668@cactus.slab.ntt.jp>

    To: wex@media.mit.edu

    Subject: Re:  Criticism of Kidcode (was Re: KidCode: Next steps )

>
> It seems you've got a lot of erroneous assumptions; I suggest you try the
> system for yourself and form an opinion.

I agree, I need to play with it more, however....

> But maybe I'm just confused.

Understandably. I rather pulled you into the middle of an
already ongoing discussion.

I was not suggesting that webhound as it is would do what
I mentioned. I meant to suggest that the overall notion of
using correlations of peoples' individual opinions could be
used as the basis of what amounts to a personalized rating system.

>
> You seem to think:
> - we're imposing rating; we're not, the ratings come from the users

Yes, I know. What I was suggesting was that the history of similarity
between users' ratings could be the basis for future ratings.

So for instance, I have a history of agreeing with a group of other
people on what resources I find unsuitable for my children. A new
resource comes along, and several of the people who have a history of agreeing
with me have labeled the new resource as unsuitable. When my
child logs in and requests to see that resource, the resource is first
passed through the filter, is labeled as unsuitable, and not shown
to my child. Something like that.

> - we're actively including material (URLs in Webhound's case); we're
> not, the database of URLs is user-grown (thus we only have around 10,000
> URLs in the database; Webcrawler claims to have over 3 million URLs)

This I also understood. As I describe above, the users themselves would
do the rating and input them into the system.

> - I am responsible for Webhound; I'm not. Webhound is the product

This I wasn't clear on.... :-{

>
> Finally, I'm still not sure what you're concerned about. Are you bothered
> that Webhound may not recommend to people documents they don't want to see
> but by some measure you think they should know about?
>

I didn't mean to come across as critical. I'm not bother by Webhound
at all. Quite the opposite. I think it is cool, and that a similar
system could be used as an effective means of creating "personalized
warning labels". Such a system strikes me as far superior to having
some government committee or any other committee for that matter sticking
on the warning labels themselves.

Given the noise that American politicians are currently making about
controling the content of the web, it would be great if someone from
media lab could enhance what you've already done to address this
particular aspect of the problem.

PF

- Next message: Larry Masinter: "Whither URI: Revising the charter, disband URI?"
- Previous message: Alan Wexelblat: "Criticism of Kidcode (was Re: KidCode: Next steps )"
- Maybe in reply to: Martijn Koster: "Criticism of Kidcode (was Re: KidCode: Next steps )"
- Next in thread: Ronald E. Daniel: "Re: Criticism of Kidcode (was Re: KidCode: Next steps )"