Re: Vocabulary for Article

That is a goid question Laura. Wikipedia, and its predicesser nunpedia, are a very special sort of project, aiming to be a collection of entries by anyone who has sonething useful to add. Such thing already has a name. A wiki. I think it may very well be debated is a wiki page should be seen as an article. I personally dont think a wiki page is a type article. 

A normal encyclopidia has a publisher and a (number of) author(s). Such os much closer to an article.


Hans Polak points out a newsarticle should not be confused with an opinated article. News is unopiniated, objective. I agree with him. The issue is not with calling such work an article, the issue is with the word news, which is these days used for pretty much anything.

An article telling us that the cat whom has been stuck in a tree has finally been resqued is news. It tells us something new, something we did not know yet, as its main intent.
An article explaining how high cats can climb and from what hight they can usually jump, is not news, but is backgroud.
An article telling us that the cat was stupid to climb in such a high tree is not news, but is an opiniated article.

This is all quite obvious, but some news agencies seem to ignor these distinctions, likely because news sells, and it sells better than bacground stories or opinions. Calling it news sells better.
But dont let that push you away from the fact that news articles are objective in nature, and for now you can mark up encyclopedia entries as newsarticle to imply objective information.


"The fact that some newspapers taint their news coverage with their political preferences is lamentable, but they're not per definition subjective."
They are not subjective,but they are opiniated. They are not simply factual reporting of events. A distinction between an objective report and an opiniated article should be made clear by the publisher. The vocab should at least accomodate the posibility of making that distinction.

I hope the vocab can be extended to make a seperate type available for wiki's.

As for the word news being abused, that is a debate society is finally about to have, now that the term fake news has come about. We will probably start seeing news agencies reinventing the name of the articles they sell to distinct themselfs from less objective compeditors. This is an issue much bigger than just the schema.org vocab.

What we could do in schema.org is adjust the description of news article, to very clearly state that with newsarticle wemean an objective reporting of news. If it is not objective, it should be marked as opiniated article instead. That way it is atleast made very clear to anyone using the vocab that marking opinated articles as news is faulty use of the vocab.

Hope that helps.
Kind regards,
Niels Lancel



On August 6, 2018 11:36:02 AM GMT+02:00, Hans Polak <info@polak.es> wrote:
>Good morning,
>
>I'd say that (ideally) newspaper articles are objective. Opinion pieces
>
>are not newspaper articles.
>
>The fact that some newspapers taint their news coverage with their 
>political preferences is lamentable, but they're not per definition 
>subjective.
>
>On the other hand, adding "encyclopedic entries" to the description is 
>an excellent idea.
>
>Cheers,
>Hans
>
>On 06/08/18 07:31, Laura Morales wrote:
>> "Article" is defined as "An article, such as a news article or piece
>of investigative report. Newspapers and magazines have articles of many
>different types and this is intended to cover them all."
>>
>> Would this be appropriate to identify articles such as encyclopedic
>entries? For example a Wikipedia article? The current definition seems
>to suggest that an article is some kind of work with a subjective point
>of view, for example a newspaper or magazine article. What can I use
>instead to identify an article which is objective and does not contain
>personal opinions, for example an encyclopedia's article?
>>