Skip to content
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

Support fact-checking work around media objects (via MediaReview and associated terms). #2450

Open
danbri opened this issue Jan 30, 2020 · 5 comments
Assignees
Labels
no-issue-activity

Comments

@danbri
Copy link
Contributor

danbri commented Jan 30, 2020

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 danbri self-assigned this Jan 30, 2020
danbri added a commit that referenced this issue Jan 30, 2020
danbri added a commit that referenced this issue Feb 5, 2020
* Reinstated 301 redirect to https

* Fixed typo: Recommendation not Recommended.

* Add in tweaks to OPTIONS request response headers

* Drafting implementation of MediaReview for discussion. /cc #2450

* Updated mediaAuthenticityCategory label.

* Added disclaimer. /cc #2450

* updated so that label matches id.

* usageInfo and acquireLicensePage properties #2454

Co-authored-by: Richard Wallis <rjw@dataliberate.com>
@danbri danbri closed this as completed in c9c7554 Apr 14, 2020
@danbri
Copy link
Contributor Author

danbri commented May 28, 2020

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

@danbri danbri reopened this Jul 22, 2020
@danbri
Copy link
Contributor Author

danbri commented Jul 22, 2020

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
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Sep 21, 2020

This issue is being tagged as Stale due to inactivity.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the no-issue-activity label Sep 21, 2020
danbri added a commit that referenced this issue Jun 9, 2021
danbri added a commit that referenced this issue Jun 9, 2021
…eview

following discussion with Duke team on relating ClaimReview and MediaReview.
Also added a missing word ('parody') - thanks @joelwluther for catching that!

For #2450
@lagsh
Copy link

lagsh commented Jun 15, 2022

maybe this could also be provided in other contexts like for an event to show if there were any changes?

@chrisspradling1980
Copy link

chrisspradling1980 commented Jun 15, 2022

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
no-issue-activity
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants