Forging the Future #1: Membership Cards for Avatars: Ideas on accreditation in an online world
March 2009
Executive summary – Confidence in how we credential people in online environments still lags behind those we have in the face-to-face world. However, looking more closely had how we establish credentials in both places, what the consequences are and what benefits we get when we have a good credentialing system, can point to options. In particular, effective means of assessing the real risks and developing ways to effectively connect proof points together may provide a path toward getting access to the talent, skills and perspectives of people wherever they are.
There are many ways that we give and get credit within our lives. Credit can be in the form of descriptors, characterizations and honors. For instance, a person might be described as male, be characterized as a scientist and be honored as a Nobel Prize winner. Each of these creates privileges, rights, and responsibilities. For those who acknowledge these credentials as true, they create expectations, allegiance, and trust (or the opposites).
Even though it is not 100% effective, we are familiar with and tend to be comfortable with mechanisms for credentialing people face-to-face. The same cannot be said, in many cases for the electronic environment. Yet, more and more, we rely on online “experts” when we buy stocks, get medical advice, explore careers and make decisions on products and services. The biggest promise of effective online credentialing – if we get this right -- may be that people will have better access to talent. And talented people will have broader markets for the value that they can produce.
And better online credentialing of people online can help support better credentialing in general. This will be especially true as access to information systems via cell phones and PDAs becomes more broad. To quickly be able to check the credentials of salespeople, authorities, professionals, and speakers... while they're standing in front of you -- will give people access to means to establish trust that goes beyond a firm handshake and a look in the eye. This may make it much more difficult for frauds and fakers to get away with their crimes.
Stepping through credentialing
To better explore online credentialing, let's look a very common credential, the college degree. Being a college graduate to be an aspect of a person's identity. That person he is credited with capabilities, knowledge, discipline and a certain amount of association, say, with other alumni. The person is a college graduate by virtue of having taken and passed required courses. The degree is conferred by the University and its board.
Ultimately, the degree means something to employers, peers, clients and many others. The evidence for the degree is usually a simple declaration on a resume. Formally, other documentation may be required, such as a diploma or a transcript. There also will be some people who can accredit the degree because they shared the person's college experience, either as classmates or as family members. These people can all vouch for a college graduate. Essentially, they put their own credibility on the line. It may be that people with less direct experience, such as an employer or business associate, may also vouch for the person. The corporate business card can declare directly to the person has, for instance, a Ph.D.
In general, a college degree is public. It is part of the official record. The consequences of giving a person credit for having a college degree are important. The personally may get access to certain groups, to certain opportunities and certain powers. In particular, with degrees in medicine and law, a certain amount of authority may be conferred upon someone with a degree.
Proofs
For anyone who's seen the movie or read the book, “Catch Me if You Can,” the book, might have some skepticism regarding the ability of the face-to-face world to properly credential people with degrees. We often rely on documents that might be faked, or on other cues, such as language, demonstrated knowledge and even a uniform. In fact, it is the job of con artists to provide us with an array of hints and “proofs” so they keep us from probing too deeply.
How does a person prove something as basic as whether or not they have a degree when they're operating in an online environment? While the set of proofs available in a face-to-face environment are far from perfect, they seem even more tenuous online. Online, proofs are largely confined to language, although the pictures, avatars, URLs and more may also be provided. This is probably one reason why people are, quite reasonably, more cautious in dealing with people electronically.
Still, a lot of proofs online are not much different from those that are available face-to-face. If you credit yourself or get someone to vouch for you in either case, you are likely to take people at their word. The level of proof demanded, as a rule from, is proportional to the risk involved. So if not much is at stake and we don't see something contradictory in the way they present themselves, many people will assume the other person is telling the truth.
For instance, the worst that can happen if you are tricked into buying the book on Amazon because of a glowing review by someone who claims to be an authority is that you'll lose the money you spent on the book. And even here, the reviewer needs to be sufficiently articulate to convince you of his or her authority. In fact, the voice, diction, grammar, arguments and grasp of the facts are all pretty good protections in many instances.
But there are places where credentialing counts. If you need a quick medical opinion, and the claim by a person that they have an M.D. is false, they can be lost of life or health. If you are trying to get education to build a marketable skill and the person providing it doesn't know what they're talking about, you can end up wasting time and money. You can also put your own reputation at risk. If you need people on your virtual team to assume certain roles to take advantage of a business opportunity, and the resumes of one or more party are false, your work, your wealth, your business and your good name can all be put at risk if you partner with them. So things get more difficult when the stakes are raised. And this is where current online accreditation runs into problems.
Toward better online credentials
Why should we care about improving mechanisms for online accreditation? Primarily because, across the spectrum of credentials, there are possibilities for expanding accessible value. There are opportunities for more diverse teams, for accessing talents in distant places and for creating unheard of synergies if online credentialing can be better manage. Looking just at the simple case of a college degree, we can see the good accreditation system will give us some confidence in hiring people, listening to their advice or giving them access to knowledge or people with which they can create value. Is this sort of utility that is the real endgame of accreditation. Today's online accreditation systems only allow us to realize small fraction of the potential that others could offer.
Today, online accreditation is conferred in a variety of ways. There does not seem to be an organized, rigorous and well thought out approach that is generally accepted. Even with something as basic as taking courses online. Even after many years, it still is in business as usual. Compare traditional college courses with online courses: People have a pretty good comfort level -- even though they know there is cheating and there are gut courses -- with acknowledging that courses taken and passed face-to-face have legitimacy. Put those same courses online, and even the conferring institution seem to have some doubts. They try to introduce checks to make sure that the work is being done and that it is being done by the person who is enrolled in the class. But there is evidence that they are not satisfied with these checks.
Online courses aren't quite real courses, it seems. In many cases, the college insists the people come in to a facility to take a test or that they otherwise provide some form of validation. (It should be pointed out that there is no universal way in use to satisfy the requirements for the credibility of online courses.) Of course, for nontraditional colleges that are totally or mostly online, it is not unusual for employers and others who need to accept the credential to express doubts.
Ultimately, the way people put together credentialing will vary. It is likely that in the future there will be standards for education, for jobs, for citizenship, and for claims on property and on other artifacts, such as works of art. New technologies (especially authentication technologies, such as biometrics) are likely to play a role here, but they're unlikely to provide the whole solution.
Certainly we don't want to leave behind any of the options that have already been developed. After all, many of these reflect the natural ways that people establish trust and to test capabilities. We will never get away from a world of social networks, attention to language, and third-party validation. All of these have value.
And we will continue to have people accepted at their word. We will continue to have people judged on the basis of a language and a knowledge. And people will vouch for each other and provide references just as they do in the face-to-face world. There's a good reason for all this. It's a terrific timesaver. It's a lot easier to ask a friend than it is to put private investigator to work. Of course, as the risk rises, the likelihood of bringing in a third-party goes up.
But there are other mechanisms, both technical and social that might be brought into play. For instance, an avatar might be used to provide a level of credentialing at a glance. Within Second Life, many IBMers have their credentials, in the form of their belonging to specific teams, hovering as text over their heads. One can imagine badges, T-shirts, hats and all sorts of tokens providing quick means for determining a person's claims were true. And since artificial worlds provide rich contexts, there could be ways, such as meta-queries and even something as simple as a facsimile college degree on wall to provide the assurances people need.
Ten key questions
Ten questions might be worth considering as we explore credentialing another person or organization:
What is the risk? To answer this, it is worthwhile to think about both what the bad consequences might be and their probability of occurrence. (In the online world, it's especially important to remember that there may be an aggregate risk.)
What is the benefit? And here again, magnitude and probability are important.
What are the points of validation? Here the number of points, how they link up and how each stands on its own can provide guidance.
What are the benefits and the risks for the person who wants to be credentialed? This is more subtle. It involves putting yourself in the other person's shoes. If that person is at tremendous risk if they are misrepresenting themselves, it may be more reasonable to trust them. This is one of the felicitous effects of having the other party vulnerable to law enforcement.
Do I understand my risk profile? Will I be able to sleep at night after clicking on that okay button?
What remedies are available to me after the fact? If things go wrong, can I get out of it, at least in part?
What are the risks that go beyond me as an individual? Does my credentialing this person reach beyond to my friends, my family, and my community? If I trust this person, will others follow my lead? (Bernie Madoff created a network of trust that was ultimately betrayed.)
Are there other hidden parties I should know about? In other words, and my one degree or two degrees away from a fraud? Are my friends savvy or naïve?
Of course, underneath all this you must ask, is this person who he or she claims to be?
Are the points of authentication, as well as accreditation, compelling?
While this is not an exhaustive list of questions, it might be useful in thinking around the issue. Just as walking the trail specified above (credential, credited by, because of, for this audience, by way of this evidence, with these consequences and this utility) in exploring one credential, the college degree, may be useful in exploring other credentials more rigorously.
Coherence
A few words about the potential role of coherence: Pattern recognition has been used by banks and retailers to detect fraud for many years. In fact, part of the promotion for certain credit cards, has been that they will keep you safe by checking with you personally if unusual charges are made. What's looked for is the consistency of behavior. We do this ourselves as we develop trust or mistrust and others. If something about them -- their clothes, their speech, or overall appearance and, especially, their behavior -- does not ring true, we are less likely to credential them. But if each of the points of evidence is coherent and continues to be coherent, we tend to believe in them.
The points of evidence gathered electronically, sometimes an astounding array of points, can be collected and analyzed in an online environment. (So many points can be pulled together that this is become a privacy concern.) This ability to detect anomalies or to confirm coherence offers a lot of hope as a way to move forward to both improve online accreditation and to expand access to tell.
Ultimately, there probably are parallels between credentialing online in providing security online. With security, the level of testing and investment (for instance, not just in encryption, but in biometrics, scanning, pattern recognition, etc.) is balanced against potential risks and benefits. Such a balance makes sense for credentialing, as well. Layers and cross checks are also important for security, providing backups into making it more difficult for malefactors to succeed. And the same could be true for credentials in the virtual world.
There are many opportunities for making online credentialing stronger and more consistent. This will open up new possibilities and make it safer for those who are more naïve and believe too much of what they read. In addition, as our worlds are blended, an easy check of that person with the ingratiating smile may save some people for falling for a line that feels right, but isn't.
Peter Andrews forgingthefuture@gmail.com
Comments