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) by schad on Monday October 17 2016, @02:43PM
That apparatus between your ears is useful for things other than making you act like a twat. Or perhaps yours isn't; I've literally never seen you contribute anything to SN except snark. Regardless, you might want to give it a whirl.
Also:
If gathering the facts, asking pointed questions to get at information that's below the surface, and then synthesizing it all into a coherent explanation for events is what you consider secretarial work, then you must not think very highly of scientists.
Or perhaps you just think very highly of secretaries. Having seen what happens to offices which lay them off to save a few bucks, I certainly hold them in higher regard than I used to.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday October 17 2016, @03:36PM
You might wish to consider that the next time you're thinking about spouting off.
That apparatus between your ears is useful for things other than making you act like a twat. Or perhaps yours isn't; I've literally never seen you contribute anything to SN except snark. Regardless, you might want to give it a whirl.
Your opinion is duly noted. Thanks for sharing the results of what, I'm sure, was an exhaustive review of my posting history [soylentnews.org]. Are there any particular bits of snark you really enjoyed? Inquiring minds want to know.
Also:
So in your view, journalists are glorified secretaries?
If gathering the facts, asking pointed questions to get at information that's below the surface, and then synthesizing it all into a coherent explanation for events is what you consider secretarial work, then you must not think very highly of scientists.
Or perhaps you just think very highly of secretaries. Having seen what happens to offices which lay them off to save a few bucks, I certainly hold them in higher regard than I used to.
I see that in addition to being obnoxious, you also have problems with reading comprehension [soylentnews.org]. A fabulous combination. I commend you, sir.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by schad on Monday October 17 2016, @04:04PM
No, I'm afraid not. Most of your snark falls in the "You're dumb, and I will not waste my time with you" category, so there's not a lot of variety. Kudos for mixing it up a little with the heavy sarcasm here, I suppose. But you're laying it on really thick to imply that I'm too dumb to get it otherwise. So it's just a slightly different form of your usual.
A straight response would've been more effective, I think. I wouldn't have been able to tell if you were responding genuinely or if you were mocking me in some way that I just wasn't seeing. That's not snark, of course, but most snark is just so mindless that I'm not sure I can ever really appreciate it.