  Trust in a recommendation system (RS) is often algorithmically incorporated
using implicit or explicit feedback of user-perceived trustworthy social
neighbors, and evaluated using user-reported trustworthiness of recommended
items. However, real-life recommendation settings can feature group disparities
in trust, power, and prerogatives. Our study examines a complementary view of
trust which relies on the editorial power relationships and attitudes of all
stakeholders in the RS application domain. We devise a simple, first-principles
metric of editorial authority, i.e., user preferences for recommendation
sourcing, veto power, and incorporating user feedback, such that one RS user
group confers trust upon another by ceding or assigning editorial authority. In
a mixed-methods study at Virginia Tech, we surveyed faculty, teaching
assistants, and students about their preferences of editorial authority, and
hypothesis-tested its relationship with trust in algorithms for a hypothetical
`Suggested Readings' RS. We discover that higher RS editorial authority
assigned to students is linked to the relative trust the course staff allocates
to RS algorithm and students. We also observe that course staff favors higher
control for the RS algorithm in sourcing and updating the recommendations
long-term. Using content analysis, we discuss frequent staff-recommended
student editorial roles and highlight their frequent rationales, such as
perceived expertise, scaling the learning environment, professional curriculum
needs, and learner disengagement. We argue that our analyses highlight critical
user preferences to help detect editorial power asymmetry and identify RS
use-cases for supporting teaching and research
