SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Google News will begin labeling "fact-checking" articles that appear major news story clusters. Richard Gingras, the "Head of News" at Google, writes that Google News will check for schema.org ClaimReview markup:
Over the last several years, fact checking has come into its own. Led by organizations like the International Fact-Checking Network, rigorous fact checks are now conducted by more than 100 active sites, according to the Duke University Reporter's Lab. They collectively produce many thousands of fact-checks a year, examining claims around urban legends, politics, health, and the media itself.
In the seven years since we started labeling types of articles in Google News (e.g., In-Depth, Opinion, Wikipedia), we've heard that many readers enjoy having easy access to a diverse range of content types. Earlier this year, we added a "Local Source" Tag to highlight local coverage of major stories. Today, we're adding another new tag, "Fact check," to help readers find fact checking in large news stories. You'll see the tagged articles in the expanded story box on news.google.com and in the Google News & Weather iOS and Android apps, starting with the U.S. and the U.K.
TechCrunch notes that "The Schema community builds markups for structured data on the internet. The group is sponsored by Google but also has support from Microsoft, Yahoo and Yandex."
(Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Sunday October 16 2016, @02:39AM
You folks seem to think that this is subversive or corrupt in some way.
Easy false advertising. The publishers of the story just need to have the right scheme structure and Google will for free heavily imply that they are a legitimate fact checking operation.
Just labeling something as a "fact check" doesn't imbue any special validity to the link, nor does it imply that it's "more" correct than any other link.
I disagree with the second part. It does imply that the fact checking article is more correct than what it is checking.
(Score: 3, Informative) by NotSanguine on Sunday October 16 2016, @03:36AM
Just labeling something as a "fact check" doesn't imbue any special validity to the link, nor does it imply that it's "more" correct than any other link.
I disagree with the second part. It does imply that the fact checking article is more correct than what it is checking.
Au contraire, mon frere. Not even close. Regardless of any markings, one must determine the "correctness" of an particular article or link for oneself.
To do otherwise is to exchange the opportunity to use your own critical thinking for that of some corporate entity which almost certainly has a hidden agenda.
The only assumption that can reasonably be made is that someone is choosing to call it a 'fact check'. Which, while not absurd on its face, isn't exactly any endorsement as to the validity or veracity of the link.
As such, accepting that any link is more valid than any other without personally confirming the veracity of said link is stupid at best. That people will likely do so doesn't make it any less stupid.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday October 16 2016, @05:35AM
Au contraire, mon frere. Not even close. Regardless of any markings, one must determine the "correctness" of an particular article or link for oneself.
Where is Google's caveat every time they do this?
To do otherwise is to exchange the opportunity to use your own critical thinking for that of some corporate entity which almost certainly has a hidden agenda.
You don't say?
As such, accepting that any link is more valid than any other without personally confirming the veracity of said link is stupid at best. That people will likely do so doesn't make it any less stupid.
Who knew people could be stupid? Who knew?