W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > September 2017

Re: Claims and Multisource Journalistic Resources

From: <moses.ma@futurelabconsulting.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 08:28:15 -0700
To: Adam Sobieski <adamsobieski@hotmail.com>
Cc: Steven_Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net>, Public-Credentials <public-credentials@w3.org>
Message-ID: <e4feff85-50f9-467d-8b90-0b55c3d16093@Moses-iPad-Air-2>
  
  

 Adam, this thinking about   Wordpress and Drupal plugins for verifiable factual claims is inspired and will make an excellent use case.   What we need to do is maintain a dual focus on generating novel approaches like this - applying verifiable claims and DIDs to this issue - while also listening very hard to the experts we'll be interviewing to inform our design thinking.   
  
  
  
 One question: it might be possible for fake news sources to leverage OpenGraph from multiple verified news sources to achieve a higher "veracity score", but render those objects   invisibly   below the fold, e.g.   in super small font, in white text on a white background... and write whatever the hell they want. I can't see how to solve this problem atomically, without the use of a reputation server.
  

  
 Moses
  
  
  
  
-
  
Moses Ma
  
moses.ma@futurelabconsulting.com
  

      
  

  
>   
> On Sep 7, 2017 at 3:30 AM,  <Adam Sobieski (mailto:adamsobieski@hotmail.com)>  wrote:
>   
>   
>             
>   
> As I think about citizen journalists and bloggers, I think about Wordpress and Drupal plugins for verifiable factual claims.
>   
>
>   
> Such plugins would include a new object type for factual   claims and the URI for each could resemble:  http://www.journalistblog.com/claims/ebfeb1f712ebc6f1c276e12ec21  or  http://www.journalistblog.com/facts/ (http://www.journalistblog.com/facts/ebfeb1f712ebc6f1c276e12ec21)ebfeb1f712ebc6f1c276e12ec21 (http://www.journalistblog.com/facts/)  . The plugins can   use the type systems of Wordpress and Drupal   to interoperate with   other systems such as sitemap.xml systems. The plugins can return content for requests for factual claims’ for content types HTML and JSON-LD. The plugins can ensure that the factual claims are shareable   via OpenGraph data. The plugins   can include forms for users to create, edit and revoke factual claims.   The plugins can ping lists of   services and users whenever factual claims   are created,   updated or deleted.
>   
>
>   
> Factual claims can be used or referenced from articles and have dependency relationships with article objects. One way to embed references to local or remote   factual claims into blog articles is using shortcodes:
>   
>
>   
> [claim id=“ebfeb1f712ebc6f1c276e12ec21”]
>   
> [claim id=“http://www.remoteclaim.com/claims/ebfeb1f712ebc6f1c276e12ec21”]
>   
>
>   
> The plugins can process blog article creation, editing and deletion events to   process dependency graphs across factual   claims providers, users automatically   subscribing to remote factual   claims’ update events   as their blog   articles depend on remote factual claims. That is, the plugins can also receive subscription requests and subscription cancelation requests to the update and deletion events of   factual claims as other users make use of their factual   claims.
>   
>
>   
> Journalists can receive notifications about their article dependencies should they update their local factual claims and, should remote factual claims   used by journalists update or change, as users of the facts, they also receive notifications promptly. The plugins can email   journalists should their articles depend on factual claims   which are updated or deleted.
>   
>
>   
> Considering   such plugins,   and considering the possible features of such plugins, we can envision   website-based and decentralized solutions which include support for citizen journalists and bloggers.
>   
>
>   
>
>   
> Best regards,
>   
> Adam
>   
>
>   
>   
>   From:   Adam Sobieski (mailto:adamsobieski@hotmail.com)
>   Sent:   ‎Wednesday‎, ‎September‎ ‎6‎, ‎2017 ‎5‎:‎59‎ ‎PM
>   To:   Steven_Rowat (mailto:steven_rowat@sunshine.net),  public-credentials@w3.org (mailto:public-credentials@w3.org)     
>
>   
>   
>   
> Beyond hosting/service/cloud costs, there   would be some operating costs per factual claim   en route to crowdsourcing or automation. These include claim merging, merging paraphrased or approximate factual claims together,   collating factual claims and   collating corroborating articles. Each journalist creates or produces their own   phrasing of a claim; however,   at some point after a news story appears, journalists could discover existing factual   claims or clusters of such claims and select them.
>   
>
>   
> That’s an excellent   point about citizen journalists’ and bloggers’ factual claims in website-based and decentralized solutions.
>   
>
>   
> I hope that the outline of topics, which you’re welcome to expand upon, is useful. The outline of topics is pertinent to website-based as well as decentralized solutions. As for whether DOI services and/or   URI resembling https://facts.press.org/fact/ebfeb1f712ebc6f1c276e12ec21
>   
> are a part of a solution depends upon   group reasoning and brainstorming.
>   
>
>   
>
>   
> Best regards,
>   
> Adam
>   
>
>   
>   
>   From:   Steven_Rowat (mailto:steven_rowat@sunshine.net)
>   Sent:   ‎Wednesday‎, ‎September‎ ‎6‎, ‎2017 ‎11‎:‎23‎ ‎AM
>   To:   public-credentials@w3.org (mailto:public-credentials@w3.org)     
>
>   
>   
> On 2017-09-05 9:55 PM, Adam Sobieski wrote:
>   >  For those interested in decentralized solutions, here are
>   >  some   hyperlinks on DOI:
>   >
>   >  _https://doi.org_  <https://doi.org/>
>   >  _https://www.crossref.org_  <https://www.crossref.org/>
>   
>  I looked into this for science publishing some time ago, and found
>  that the DOI system requires fees, and as such is set up primarily for
>  large organizations, not individuals.
>   
>  Would you agree with this? And so it's appropriate for journalists
>  working for larger organizations, but not for citizen journalists,
>  individual bloggers, and so forth?
>   
>  Fees would vary from different providers, and for yearly volume of
>  publishing.
>  But, for example, a minimum yearly for the smallest-scale publisher at
>  Crossref is $275, plus various other fees per document.
>   
>  Here's the fee structure at Crossref:
>   
>  https://www.crossref.org/fees/
>   
>   
>   >  _https://facts.press.org/fact/12345678_
>   >  or
>   >  _https://facts.press.org/fact/did:example:12345678_
>   
>  I'm getting file not found on these.
>   
>  Steven
>   
>   
>   
>                  
Received on Thursday, 7 September 2017 15:29:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:18:13 UTC