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.