Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Saturday October 15 2016, @07:06PM   Printer-friendly
from the snopes-way-this-will-work dept.

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."


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by BK on Sunday October 16 2016, @03:30AM

    by BK (4868) on Sunday October 16 2016, @03:30AM (#414763)

    The problem seems to be education, interest and critical thinking:

    Your point 1 & 3 contradict eachother unless you are speaking in code. Real "critical thinking" dependent on "education" is just groupthink. When people talk about a lack of critical thinking, even when this is done by 'good' people, it is almost always code for "those people disagree with me but are WRONG; if only they could think better they'd realize"!

    Ultimately, a critical thinker evaluates a claim or idea to see if it is reasonable... but has to do this evaluation in the context of what they know. Sure that's education... but unless they've been going around testing and proving their facts, the whole amounts to a naked appeal to authority. And that's OK too so long as the critical thinker is in a position to genuinely evaluate the those 'authorities'. I wouldn't know how to evaluate a nuclear physicist. Lots of 'authorities' get things wrong regularly.

    So we teach a dogma and call it education.

    -- The universe started 15bn years ago. Solar energy is good. Humans evolved from algae. Hydrocarbon energy is bad because it's not 'renewable'. The world is round. The universe contains 'dark energy'. Nuclear energy is bad AND scary. The force of gravity is 11m/s^2. Columbus sailed to [someplace] in 1492AD. Earth is warmer in 2016 than it was in 1816. The Mariana Trench is deeper than everyplace else. Mohamed is holy because he [raped] a 9 year old girl. Jesus had a pet dinosaur. There is an infinite quantity of prime numbers. Jupiter has moons. Alpha Centauri is 4 lightyears from Earth. 2+2=4 --

    So which of these have you proven or verified yourself? How did you pick experts to trust for the rest? If you disagree with some of it it must be because you lack education or critical thinking skills. That seems common among Canadians.

    Trump vs. Hillary. WTF?
    Why are Americans not in the streets yelling? Are they going to just accept this?

    Yep. Americans are going to trust the authority of their Constitution that says that there will / should be a winner chosen from these candidates. Their education told them that that's what they should do. Seems reasonable -- it's worked so far. They [we] will try again in 4 years and probably screw it up again.

    --
    ...but you HAVE heard of me.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 2) by Gaaark on Sunday October 16 2016, @01:51PM

    by Gaaark (41) on Sunday October 16 2016, @01:51PM (#414852) Journal

    By education, I mean the people who can't even read an Archie comic... it's harder to be knowledgeable about things like politics, where you need to be able to read between the lines, when you can't even read the lines yourself.

    A few times I've encountered people who want me to read something to them because they 'forgot' their glasses (yes, maybe legit). I could tell them anything I wanted! If you can't read, it's hard to disprove something by critical thinking because you are relying on others to tell you the 'truths'.

    Just like it's hard to find the truth when the news sites propagandise. You read, then you read between the lines. And you think.

    --
    --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
    • (Score: 2) by BK on Sunday October 16 2016, @04:07PM

      by BK (4868) on Sunday October 16 2016, @04:07PM (#414883)

      Your implication was that lack of... education and critical thought... was some how responsible, at least in part, for Hillary v. Donald among other things. While I agree that full-out illiteracy is a problem where you find it, I don't think it's a factor here. Even in places where education is stereotypically not up to the highest standard, I think you'll find that most everyone can read.

      --
      ...but you HAVE heard of me.