Re: Fact-checking and community notes on the Fediverse

Dominique Hazaël-Massieux,
Benjamin Goering,
All,

I've CC'ed Dominique Hazaël-Massieux, Community Development Lead, who might know whom to contact to access the system to correct that typo in the Decentralized Fact-checking & Provenance Organization (DeFacto) Community Group's description, correcting from "Working Group" to "Community Group".

I, for one, am looking forward to contributing to researching, developing, building, maintaining, managing, upgrading, and implementing robust amendments for a decentralized fact-checking system and stringent provenance standards for text-based literature and content with both the Credible Web CG and DeFacto CG.


Best regards,
Adam

________________________________
From: Benjamin Goering <ben@bengo.co>
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2025 2:00 PM
To: Adam Sobieski <adamsobieski@hotmail.com>
Cc: aaronngray@gmail.com <aaronngray@gmail.com>; Emelia S. <emelia@brandedcode.com>; Evan Prodromou <evan@prodromou.name>; public-swicg@w3c.org <public-swicg@w3c.org>; public-defacto@w3.org <public-defacto@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Fact-checking and community notes on the Fediverse

I find it confusing how the `defacto` CG<https://www.w3.org/groups/cg/defacto/> (mailing list cc'd) describes itself here<https://www.w3.org/groups/cg/defacto/> and on LinkedIn as `Decentralized Fact-checking & Provenance Working Group (DFCP)` and the chairs (who are also founders of fact.technology) list 'W3C' and that 'Working Group' on their LinkedIns in a way that 1) makes it look like they work for W3C and 2) makes it look like that community group is a W3C Working Group, when it's not and 3) the use of 'Working Group' could imply that CG is more legitimate than other CGs like https://credweb.org/

Heads up, because at the very least it is confusing and, iirc, there may be some community guidelines about not representing a W3C CG as a WG, and not using the W3C logo in a way that is misleading.