According to Craig, “the core of the concept of knowledge is an outcome of certain very general facts about the human situation” (1990, 10). The most conspicuous such general fact is that we must rely on others as sources of information (1990, 11), which in turn gives rise to the need for some way to pick out good informants. “[A]t its most subjective,” the need is for an informant who, among other things, is accessible to and recognizable by me here and now, and as likely to be right about p as my concerns require (ibid., 84–85). However, the high degree of purpose-relativity of the ‘subjectivized’ notion of the good informant makes it ill-suited to play an effective inter-personal role. According to Craig, for there to be useful sharing of information individuals must share a common point of view concerning the character and presence of good informants. Hence the pressure to form an ‘objectivized’ concept — one that retains the ‘common core’ of the notion without tying it to the needs, abilities, and circumstances of specific individuals “and so varying with them” (1990, 88). Craig’s proposal, in brief, is that the concept of the knower is the objectivized notion of a good informant (ibid., 90–91).[24]