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

Closed
danbri opened this Issue Mar 29, 2016 · 17 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
6 participants
@danbri
Contributor

danbri commented Mar 29, 2016

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:

  • 1.) ClaimReview as a subtype of Review. "A fact-checking review of claims made in some creative work."
  • 2.) claimReviewed as a property of ClaimReview. "A short summary of the specific claims reviewed in a ClaimReview."
  • 3.) It uses the existing 'author' property on Review to indicate the organization behind the review.
  • 4.) It uses a new property, claimReviewSiteLogo on the (Claim)Review to indicate the fact-checking organization's logo.
  • 5.) It uses the existing itemReviewed property to indicate the document that carries the claims being reviewed (which could include as shown here, offline newspaper articles).

Example

(updated for Feb 2017 but original was close)

<script type="application/ld+json">
{
    "@context": "http://schema.org",
    "@type":  "ClaimReview",
    "datePublished": "2014-07-23",
    "url": "http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2014/jul/23/rick-perry/rick-perry-claim-about-3000-homicides-illegal-immi/",
    "author": {
        "@type": "Organization",
        "url": "http://www.politifact.com/",
        "sameAs": "https://twitter.com/politifact"
    },
    "claimReviewed": "More than 3,000 homicides were committed by \"illegal aliens\" over the past six years.",
    "reviewRating": {
        "@type": "Rating",
        "ratingValue": 1,
        "bestRating": 6,
        "alternateName": "True",
        "image": "http://static.politifact.com/mediapage/jpgs/politifact-logo-big.jpg"
    },
    "itemReviewed": {
        "@type": "CreativeWork",
        "author": {
            "@type": "Person",
            "name": "Rich Perry",
            "jobTitle": "Former Governor of Texas",
            "image": "https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/15/Gov._Perry_CPAC_February_2015.jpg/440px-Gov._Perry_CPAC_February_2015.jpg",
            "sameAs": [
                "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Perry",
                "https://rickperry.org/"
            ]
        },
        "datePublished": "2014-07-17",
        "name": "The St. Petersburg Times interview [...]"
    }
}
</script>




 See also

@danbri

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@danbri

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@danbri

danbri Mar 29, 2016

Contributor

Suggestions:

  • Instead of 'twitter' as a property, use 'sameAs' with full URL.
  • Can we use 'logo' of the Organization instead of claimReviewSiteLogo?
  • What is "text": "True" for?
  • The example has "image" : "http://static.politifact.com/mediapage/jpgs/politifact-logo-big.jpg" on the Rating - seems redundant as that URL is already in there.
  • sourceName should probably be just 'name', but we could distinguish the source article versus its publisher explicitly.
  • Use 'jobTitle' rather than 'title' (for "Former Governor of Texas")
Contributor

danbri commented Mar 29, 2016

Suggestions:

  • Instead of 'twitter' as a property, use 'sameAs' with full URL.
  • Can we use 'logo' of the Organization instead of claimReviewSiteLogo?
  • What is "text": "True" for?
  • The example has "image" : "http://static.politifact.com/mediapage/jpgs/politifact-logo-big.jpg" on the Rating - seems redundant as that URL is already in there.
  • sourceName should probably be just 'name', but we could distinguish the source article versus its publisher explicitly.
  • Use 'jobTitle' rather than 'title' (for "Former Governor of Texas")
@danbri

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@danbri

danbri Apr 4, 2016

Contributor

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.

Contributor

danbri commented Apr 4, 2016

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.

danbri added a commit that referenced this issue Apr 22, 2016

Tidied 1061 ClaimReview schema.
Added 'source' link so github shows up in pending site.
Removed old image property that wasn't needed.
For #1061
@danbri

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@danbri

danbri Jul 20, 2016

Contributor

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/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/may/17/fact-checking-pro-clinton-super-pacs-attacks-donal/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/06/17/fact-checking-three-democratic-claims-on-assault-rifles-and-guns/

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.

"reviewRating": {
   "@type": "Rating",
   "ratingValue": "2",
   "bestRating": "5",
   "name": "Two Pinocchios",
   "image" : "https://s3.amazonaws.com/share-the-facts/rating_images/washpo/washpo_pinnochios_2.png"
 },

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.

Contributor

danbri commented Jul 20, 2016

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/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/may/17/fact-checking-pro-clinton-super-pacs-attacks-donal/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/06/17/fact-checking-three-democratic-claims-on-assault-rifles-and-guns/

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.

"reviewRating": {
   "@type": "Rating",
   "ratingValue": "2",
   "bestRating": "5",
   "name": "Two Pinocchios",
   "image" : "https://s3.amazonaws.com/share-the-facts/rating_images/washpo/washpo_pinnochios_2.png"
 },

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.

@danbri

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@danbri

danbri Aug 19, 2016

Contributor

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.

Contributor

danbri commented Aug 19, 2016

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.

@bquinn

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@bquinn

bquinn Aug 23, 2016

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.

bquinn commented Aug 23, 2016

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.

@danbri

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@danbri

danbri Aug 23, 2016

Contributor

Oh, that is nice, thanks @bquinn. Makes a change from reading about "post factual" democracy...

Contributor

danbri commented Aug 23, 2016

Oh, that is nice, thanks @bquinn. Makes a change from reading about "post factual" democracy...

@unor

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@unor

unor Oct 14, 2016

Contributor

For reference:

Google News suggests to use ClaimReview in their blog post Labeling fact-check articles in Google News (link to pending) and in their help about source labels (Fact Check) (link core, where the type does not yet exist).

Contributor

unor commented Oct 14, 2016

For reference:

Google News suggests to use ClaimReview in their blog post Labeling fact-check articles in Google News (link to pending) and in their help about source labels (Fact Check) (link core, where the type does not yet exist).

@danbri

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@danbri

danbri Nov 1, 2016

Contributor

See also blog post with ideas around this from Leigh Dodds @ldodds https://twitter.com/ldodds/status/793538304981528576

Contributor

danbri commented Nov 1, 2016

See also blog post with ideas around this from Leigh Dodds @ldodds https://twitter.com/ldodds/status/793538304981528576

danbri added a commit that referenced this issue Nov 3, 2016

danbri added a commit that referenced this issue Nov 3, 2016

danbri added a commit that referenced this issue Nov 3, 2016

ClaimReview is now (proposed to be) in core, so multiple-typing with …
…Review not needed.

Also the image in the example was attached to the Rating instead of the rater.
/cc #1061

danbri added a commit that referenced this issue Nov 3, 2016

Moved image property to be of the organization not of the rating it m…
…ade.

This is because it is a general image for Politifact, not an icon
representing a specific rating score.
/cc #1061
@thinkcontext

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@thinkcontext

thinkcontext Dec 16, 2016

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.

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.

@unor

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@unor

unor Dec 16, 2016

Contributor

@thinkcontext The description of ClaimReview suggests to reference the work where the claim is made with the itemReviewed property.

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?

Contributor

unor commented Dec 16, 2016

@thinkcontext The description of ClaimReview suggests to reference the work where the claim is made with the itemReviewed property.

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?

@thinkcontext

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@thinkcontext

thinkcontext Dec 16, 2016

I see, thanks for that clarification @unor

I see, thanks for that clarification @unor

@melvincarvalho

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@melvincarvalho

melvincarvalho Jan 7, 2017

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.

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.

@stefanw

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@stefanw

stefanw Apr 13, 2017

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 ClaimReview for each of these sites.

Is using sameAs appropriate in this case? E.g.

...
    "itemReviewed": {
        "@type": "CreativeWork",
        "url": "http://example.org/example-1",
        "sameAs": [
                "http://example.com/example-2",
                "http://example.com/example-3"
        ]
    }
...

Or should one place multiple itemReviewed properties in one ClaimReview? Or are multiple instances of workExample the appropriate property, as the reviewed claim has many concrete URLs?

I don't necessarily want to identify the URLs as the same, only similar enough to warrant the same claimReview.

stefanw commented Apr 13, 2017

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 ClaimReview for each of these sites.

Is using sameAs appropriate in this case? E.g.

...
    "itemReviewed": {
        "@type": "CreativeWork",
        "url": "http://example.org/example-1",
        "sameAs": [
                "http://example.com/example-2",
                "http://example.com/example-3"
        ]
    }
...

Or should one place multiple itemReviewed properties in one ClaimReview? Or are multiple instances of workExample the appropriate property, as the reviewed claim has many concrete URLs?

I don't necessarily want to identify the URLs as the same, only similar enough to warrant the same claimReview.

@unor

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@unor

unor Apr 13, 2017

Contributor

@stefanw: Using multiple itemReviewed values should be the right way:

    "itemReviewed": [
        {
          "@type": "CreativeWork",
          "url": "http://example.org/example-1"
        },
        {
          "@type": "CreativeWork",
          "url": "http://example.org/example-2"
        }
    ]
Contributor

unor commented Apr 13, 2017

@stefanw: Using multiple itemReviewed values should be the right way:

    "itemReviewed": [
        {
          "@type": "CreativeWork",
          "url": "http://example.org/example-1"
        },
        {
          "@type": "CreativeWork",
          "url": "http://example.org/example-2"
        }
    ]
@danbri

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@danbri

danbri Jun 23, 2018

Contributor

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.

Contributor

danbri commented Jun 23, 2018

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.

@danbri danbri closed this Jun 23, 2018

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment