On Feb 11, 2004, at 12:13 AM, Walter Dnes wrote:
On Mon, Feb 09, 2004 at 06:47:39PM -0500, Seth Breidbart wrote
Yakov Shafranovich <research(_at_)solidmatrix(_dot_)com> wrote:
An accrediation service is vouching for someone, a reputation
service is stating an opinion of someone's reputation. The two
things are different.
How are they different (in any way that matters to me)? In both
cases, a third party X is saying something to the effect of "I think
you should trust Y." (Or is it that accreditation can only be
positive, while reputation can be positive or negative? In that case,
I see no reason for accreditation services since they're strictly a
subset of reputation services.)
I interpret accreditation to mean testifying to known facts. E.g.
company using a certificate is XYZ. Reputation is more word-of-mouth,
or what the community *THINKS* of someone's character.
Accreditation to me involves an official, recognizable entity
certifying that the party in question meets some sort of standard.
This accrediting entity should be widely recognized as being able to
provide this sort of assessment without need for corroborating support.
Reputation is a less-formal aggregate measure formed from the
collective opinion of a community.
The difference to me is that with accreditation you can point back to a
single entity as the source, while with reputation you cannot.
Asrg mailing list