W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credibility@w3.org > February 2020

Re: journalism award signals

From: Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 13:55:04 -0800
To: public-credibility@w3.org
Message-ID: <cd814c90-8c1e-9fd0-2b66-9e05c5e8af52@lbl.gov>
Unfortunately, the GPRAMA is unlikely to lead government contractors 
like the national labs to make their performance reports available in 
truly machine-readable formats, as (a) it applies to agencies, not 
contractors, and (b) it does not specify a definition of 
machine-readable. For many people, PDF counts as "searchable and machine 
readable", and indeed many of the contractors already meet that bar. 
 From what I can see, the GPRAMA really doesn't do more than require 
that information about the planning of the government itself be made 
available to humans via computers. It's a good step, but to my mind at 
least, it doesn't exemplify particularly tech-savvy legislation. I don't 
see it as a means to glean reliable credibility signals.


On 2/19/20 4:41 PM, Owen Ambur wrote:
> Point well taken, Annette.  Beyond peer recognition however, it would 
> be good to make salient the underlying performance indicators 
> specifying what excellence truly means.
> In the case of U.S. federal agencies, section 10 
> <https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/open-machine-readable-government-owen-ambur/> 
> of the GPRA Modernization Act (GPRAMA) requires them to publish their 
> performance reports in machine-readable format. It would be good if 
> some of the laureates associated with DOE and LBNL could help lead the 
> way.
> In the meantime, on their behalf, I have published their strategic 
> plans in open, standard, machine-readable StratML format at 
> https://stratml.us/drybridge/index.htm#DOE
> Perhaps someday news organizations will be held accountable not only 
> for doing likewise but also paying greater deference to reliable data 
> than to story telling based so heavily on personal perspectives.  If 
> not, more of what we already see is what we are likely to get, both 
> literally as well as figuratively.
> BTW, here's OKF's data journalism guide in StratML format: 
> https://stratml.us/carmel/iso/DJH5MFGwStyle.xml Unfortunately, it says 
> noting about the Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act 
> (FEBPA <https://stratml.us/drybridge/index.htm#FEBPA>), including 
> Title II, the OPEN Government Data Act (OGDA 
> <https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/open-gov-data-act-machine-readable-records-owen-ambur/>).
> It is ironic that Congress, which is held in such low regard, seems to 
> be so far ahead of the news media, the "knowledge" community, and the 
> W3C in recognizing the importance of open, standard schema-compliant, 
> machine-readable public records. 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine-readable_document
> Owen
> On 2/19/2020 6:59 PM, Annette Greiner wrote:
>> One of the things that the awards idea makes me think about is 
>> evaluating not just a site but the organization that publishes it. 
>> Scientific organizations don't get journalism awards, but their 
>> researchers may well get prestigious scientific awards, like Nobel 
>> Prizes and Fields Medals. I work at a lab that's pretty conspicuous 
>> for its Nobels, so I don't want to emphasize that more than it 
>> deserves, but in general I want to make sure this list doesn't end up 
>> only making sense for journalistic sites.
>> -Annette
>> On 2/19/20 9:21 AM, Sandro Hawke wrote:
>>> On 2/19/20 11:48 AM, Sastry, Nishanth wrote:
>>>> Hello Sandro, all,
>>>> This just a quick email to introduce myself as a new member to the 
>>>> group, from King’s College London. I had applied to the credible 
>>>> web WG several months back, but got approved by our University 
>>>> contact just days before, and have since been added to this email 
>>>> list.
>>>> We have done a bunch of work looking at
>>>>  1. hyper partisan websites, in the context of the US Presidential
>>>>     elections:
>>>>   * https://nms.kcl.ac.uk/nishanth.sastry/publication/nrswww-2018-b/
>>>>       o This provided inputs for a major expose by Buzzfeed News:
>>>>         https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/craigsilverman/inside-the-partisan-fight-for-your-news-feed
>>>>   * https://nms.kcl.ac.uk/nishanth.sastry/publication/nrswww-2020/
>>>>       o Showing that right leaning sites track more intensely than
>>>>         left leaning sites (Covered by WIRED:
>>>>         https://www.wired.com/story/right-left-news-site-ad-tracking/)
>>>>  2. bias in news and social media during political crises
>>>>   * https://nms.kcl.ac.uk/nishanth.sastry/publication/karamshuk-16-slant/
>>>>  3. And finally, on transferring trust across domains (which is
>>>>     very aligned with what I see in the signals draft. We also use
>>>>     age as an “ungameable” signal to transfer trust across domains.
>>>>     We do this for IDs of individuals rather than domains, but the
>>>>     paper develops ways to calibrate trust, answering questions
>>>>     such as – is a 10 year-old Facebook ID more trustworthy than a
>>>>     15 year old Gmail ID, for example):
>>>>   * https://nms.kcl.ac.uk/nishanth.sastry/publication/nr-swww-16/
>>> Very nice.  I'd love to get into signals about individuals, but we 
>>> it looked like websites would be a little simpler, and we wanted to 
>>> start in the simplest possible place.  Hopefully we can get into 
>>> such things fairly soon.
>>>>  *
>>>> I will join the Zoom at 7pm GMT, and can add any further details 
>>>> that may be interesting to the group. Looking forward.
>>> Great, looking forward to meeting you.  This meeting will be mostly 
>>> about wrapping up this little sprint, but then hopefully we can 
>>> expand a bit for the next phase.
>>>      -- Sandro
>>>> Best wishes
>>>> nishanth
>>>> *From: *Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
>>>> *Date: *Wednesday, 19 February 2020 at 15:51
>>>> *To: *Credible Web CG <public-credibility@w3.org>
>>>> *Subject: *journalism award signals
>>>> *Resent from: *<public-credibility@w3.org>
>>>> *Resent date: *Wednesday, 19 February 2020 at 15:51
>>>> I did a bit more work on the Journalism Awards, framing it as a 
>>>> general signal and one more specific signals.
>>>> I put them into the "reviewed signals" draft, marked as "pending".
>>>> Here's a dated version of that draft: 
>>>> https://credweb.org/reviewed-signals-20200219/ 
>>>> <https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcredweb.org%2Freviewed-signals-20200219%2F&data=01%7C01%7Cnishanth.sastry%40kcl.ac.uk%7C1c1f34f786234483d96c08d7b5539380%7C8370cf1416f34c16b83c724071654356%7C0&sdata=Vf7GBSfAxU5%2BtP8oOqK1vMf0Oxw2DgDXLWtBoQ8f4k0%3D&reserved=0> 
>>>> (The undated version presumably wont show them as pending after 
>>>> today, which could confuse someone reading this later.)
>>>> Meeting in about 3 hours, as usual. Agenda 
>>>> <https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fdocument%2Fd%2F1-KcB121I6D6J2ZdQET-qatqCaqv3ttlZkfhgyWEk7nM%2Fedit&data=01%7C01%7Cnishanth.sastry%40kcl.ac.uk%7C1c1f34f786234483d96c08d7b5539380%7C8370cf1416f34c16b83c724071654356%7C0&sdata=fu%2FG4cV3ziND%2BcDFacnZsRAKJLiVYuYwRF9c9Ik%2FSFM%3D&reserved=0>.
>>>>        -- Sandro
>> -- 
>> Annette Greiner (she)
>> NERSC Data and Analytics Services
>> Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Annette Greiner (she)
NERSC Data and Analytics Services
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Received on Thursday, 20 February 2020 21:55:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 20 February 2020 21:55:27 UTC