Re: Fact-checking and Argumentation

On 7 January 2017 at 03:47, Adam Sobieski <adamsobieski@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Schema.org Community Group,
> Argumentation Community Group,
>
> Here is an article from the Collaborative Software Community Group, *E-Participation,
> Decision Support Systems, Multi-document Natural Language Processing and
> Cognitive Bias Mitigation *(
> *https://www.w3.org/community/collaboration/2015/12/09/e-participation-decision-support-systems-multi-document-natural-language-processing-and-cognitive-bias-mitigation/*
> <https://www.w3.org/community/collaboration/2015/12/09/e-participation-decision-support-systems-multi-document-natural-language-processing-and-cognitive-bias-mitigation/>), which
> indicates the interrelated topics:
>
> *1. Performing fact-checking*
>
> *2. Performing argument analysis*
>
> 3. Detecting spin and persuasion
>
> 4. Performing sentiment analysis
>
> 5. Detecting frame building and frame setting
>
> 6. Detecting agenda building and agenda setting
>
> 7. Detecting various sociolinguistic, social semiotic, sociocultural and
> memetic events
>
> 8. Detecting the dynamics of the attention of individuals, groups and the
> public
>
> 9. Detecting framing effects and other cognitive biases resulting from
> simultaneous or proximate, parallel and sequential, discussions of topics
> and subtopics
>
> 10. Presenting the detected real-time information to individuals and
> groups, supporting situation awareness and sensemaking
>

Very interesting.  I think trying to find solutions to these problems would
be quite valuable.

In terms of schema.org, which terms do you think we can we put in the data
to help facilitate solving problems 1-10?


>
>
> Recommended models and technologies of use toward argumentation schemas
> include:
>
> 1. AIF (*http://www.argumentinterchange.org/*
> <http://www.argumentinterchange.org/>)
>
> 2. ArgDF (*http://www.argdf.org/* <http://www.argdf.org/>)
>
>
> Best regards,
> Adam Sobieski
> *http://www.phoster.com/contents/* <http://www.phoster.com/contents/>
> *https://www.w3.org/community/argumentation/*
> <https://www.w3.org/community/argumentation/>
> *https://www.w3.org/community/collaboration/*
> <https://www.w3.org/community/collaboration/>
>
> *From:* Adam Sobieski <adamsobieski@hotmail.com>
> *Sent:* ‎Friday‎, ‎January‎ ‎6‎, ‎2017 ‎2‎:‎49‎ ‎AM
> *To:* public-schemaorg@w3.org, public-argumentation@w3.org
>
> Schema.org Community Group,
> Argumentation Community Group,
>
> I would like to applaud the ClaimReview proposal (
> *http://pending.schema.org/ClaimReview*
> <http://pending.schema.org/ClaimReview>), discussed here, in this mailing
> list, and also at: *https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/1061*
> <https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/1061> .
>
> I opine that the discussion is one toward an Argumentation Web insofar as
> it discusses claims. Claims are presently text (
> *http://pending.schema.org/claimReviewed*
> <http://pending.schema.org/claimReviewed>) but could be, at some point,
> text or Claim (referenced by URI). Fact-checking does not require the
> fact-checked documents’ authors to utilize a specific technology, technique
> or schema; fact-checked authors do not have to indicate or annotate the
> claims in their documents.
>
> Argumentation mining tasks include, but are not limited to, finding the
> claims in natural language documents (
> *http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=related:7hn0XfveJs0J:scholar.google.com/&hl=en*
> <http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=related:7hn0XfveJs0J:scholar.google.com/&hl=en>); forthcoming
> corpora of fact-checking and fact-checked documents and other derived
> corpora will be of use for the automatic detection of claims in natural
> language documents and of use for other argumentation mining research.
>
> Which factors contribute to the discussion, adoption and utilization of
> schemas? Some of those factors are emergent features, those of search
> engines, of major websites and of software.
>
> “Google News determines whether an article might contain fact checks in
> part by looking for the schema.org ClaimReview markup. We also look for
> sites that follow the commonly accepted criteria for fact checks.
> Publishers who create fact-checks and would like to see it appear with
> the ‘Fact check’ tag should use that markup in fact-check articles.” (
> *https://blog.google/topics/journalism-news/labeling-fact-check-articles-google-news/*
> <https://blog.google/topics/journalism-news/labeling-fact-check-articles-google-news/>
> )
>
> From fact-checking to argumentation, we can consider how the automatic
> detection of claims might impact the indexing, search and retrieval of
> documents in distributed, decentralized, discussion forums. We can consider
> how the detection of argumentation might as well. We can consider new
> search engine, major website and productivity and collaboration software
> features which would result from argumentation schema.
>
>
> Best regards,
> Adam Sobieski
> *http://www.phoster.com/contents/* <http://www.phoster.com/contents/>
> *https://www.w3.org/community/argumentation/*
> <https://www.w3.org/community/argumentation/>
> *https://www.w3.org/community/collaboration/*
> <https://www.w3.org/community/collaboration/>
>
>