Support fact-checking work around media objects (via MediaReview and associated terms).

[danbri]

See proposal circulated, Monday, 6 January 2020 "fact-checking images and videos: a proposal Dan Brickley":

discussions with fact checkers and others, towards improved documentation, vocabulary and
markup patterns for fact checking videos and images.

There's a draft at the link below from Bill and Joel Luther, which builds
on prior work by the Washington Post. Comments are probably best made
directly in the document (SEOs, please *don't* ask SEO questions there!). The
document includes links to the earlier work mentioned, and to a spreadsheet that
tries to apply the proposal to some real world examples. Please take a look.

Details at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jRbX2IesVQrWvKpehb8ntSMKe0D88bZp3nK8ZAjq6E4/edit

[danbri]

It appears I accidentally closed this issue last month; my apologies, I got an issue number wrong and referenced it by mistake.

[danbri]

See also https://www.niemanlab.org/2020/01/is-this-video-missing-context-transformed-or-edited-this-effort-wants-to-standardize-how-we-categorize-visual-misinformation/ for background.

As of July 2020, we have a placeholder stub in Schema.org (marked as "pending") but more work is needed both on the code list, on ensuring we understand how it relates to ClaimReview markup patterns, the relative scope of ClaimReview vs MediaReview, and the wider impact on the ecosystem that such a markup might have.

[github-actions]

This issue is being tagged as Stale due to inactivity.