-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 825
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add vocab to support markup of fact-checking sites #1061
Comments
Suggestions:
|
Note that #271 proposes a Quotation type under CreativeWork, now implemented within the pending extension as http://pending.webschemas.org/Quotation ... this should plug in directly here. |
Added 'source' link so github shows up in pending site. Removed old image property that wasn't needed. For #1061
An update on adoption of this vocabulary, for those who might have missed it. If you inspect (via in-browser element inspection) the post-Javascript DOM of URLs such as http://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/groundhog-friday-7/ you will see Widget-injected JSON-LD using the ClaimReview type, and that augments the Rating item with (in the last case) a 'name' property that carries non-numeric codes, e.g.
See also https://github.com/ReportersLabDuke/Widget/ which has related widget code. I mention this in part because of nearby discussion (#668 #915 and most recently #780) around the question of representing awards, "star ratings" (esp. for accomodation) and other endorsements, and how general vs domain specific we want various constructions to be. The point of overlap (beyond the general connection to the notion of Review and/or Rating) is that the fact checking sites have situations such as "Two Pinocchios" in which a well known (and site/provider-specific) informal but named code is applied to something. The broadly analogous situation with awards is that something is awarded "critic's pick", "x of the year" etc., which can be conceived of as a kind of rating. Meanwhile schema.org/Rating defaults to 5-point scales. Despite that discussion, my feeling is that ClaimReview has proved its worth and the design seems reasonably stable. I suggest we move it into the core (it is currently staged in pending.schema.org) to encourage further adoption. |
Given the relatively small number of sites in the fact-checking audience, I believe having politifact, factcheck.org and the Washington Post is excellent progress. I'll proceed with moving this into Core just as soon as we figure out how exactly to structure this technically (so that the old URLs are still useful). /cc @shankarnat @tmarshbing @chaals @nicolastorzec @scor @mfhepp @rvguha @vholland in case anyone cares to suggest another course of action. |
Just thought I'd mention that this proposal gets a mention in the recent fullfact.org "State of Automated Factchecking" report in case that adds fuel to the fire of getting it moved into schema.org core. |
Oh, that is nice, thanks @bquinn. Makes a change from reading about "post factual" democracy... |
For reference: Google News suggests to use |
See also blog post with ideas around this from Leigh Dodds @ldodds https://twitter.com/ldodds/status/793538304981528576 |
…Review not needed. Also the image in the example was attached to the Rating instead of the rater. /cc #1061
…ade. This is because it is a general image for Politifact, not an icon representing a specific rating score. /cc #1061
Suggestion, it would be helpful to include a property for a link to a source for where the claim is made. Most fact checking articles include such a link to an original piece of news reporting or a primary source that is the origin (or close to the origin) of the claim. |
@thinkcontext The description of For example: <article vocab="http://schema.org/" typeof="ClaimReview">
<h2 property="name">Fact check: Foo (example.com)</h2>
<div property="itemReviewed" typeof="Article">
<a property="url" href="http://example.com/articles/foo"><cite property="name">Foo</cite></a>
</div>
</article> Does this work for you? |
I see, thanks for that clarification @unor |
The use of sameAs in the example, seems kind of problematic, particularly in the context of reviews. I might like Ricky Martin's home page, but not like Ricky Martin. |
How should the markup work when reviewing a claim that has spread around and is present on multiple URLs? We don't want to publish a Is using
Or should one place multiple I don't necessarily want to identify the URLs as the same, only similar enough to warrant the same |
@stefanw: Using multiple "itemReviewed": [
{
"@type": "CreativeWork",
"url": "http://example.org/example-1"
},
{
"@type": "CreativeWork",
"url": "http://example.org/example-2"
}
] |
Mission accomplished folks. The ClaimReview markup is very much out there. Particular thanks to @BillAdairDuke for getting this started and for his tireless advocacy ever since :) I will close this issue now. Please see #1969 as our new tracking issue for this work and sub-issues. Note btw that we added (per #1828) a Claim type (as pending while we tidy up the messaging and examples) as part of last week's v3.4 release. |
For info, from Facebook: https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2018/06/increasing-our-efforts-to-fight-false-news/ and a while back, Microsoft Bing, https://blogs.bing.com/Webmaster-Blog/September-2017/Bing-adds-Fact-Check-label-in-SERP-to-support-the-ClaimReview-markup |
The following markup is proposed for use by a collaboration amongst fact-checking sites.
It adds vocabulary around Review to make more explicit when these are from fact-checking sites:
It uses a new property, claimReviewSiteLogo on the (Claim)Review to indicate the fact-checking organization's logo.Example
(updated for Feb 2017 but original was close)
See also
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: