  Rather than using (proxies of) end user or expert judgment to decide on the
ranking of information, this paper asks whether conversations about information
quality might offer a feasible and valuable addition for ranking information.
We introduce a theoretical framework for information quality, outlining how
information interaction should be perceived as a conversation and quality be
evaluated as a conversational contribution. Next, an overview is given of
different systems of social alignment and their value for assessing quality and
ranking information. We propose that a collaborative approach to quality
assessment is preferable and raise key questions about the feasibility and
value of such an approach for ranking information. We conclude that information
quality is an inherently interactive concept, which involves an interaction
between users of different backgrounds and in different situations as well as
of quality signals on users' search behavior and experience.
