- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2012 22:43:39 +0200
- To: public-vocabs@w3.org
(disclaimer: thinking out loud) A smart-enough-to-know-better friend who shall remain nameless just re-shared this link, having given it a quick check over (by searching) and it looked real enough. At first glance it was Onion-esque but wasn't obviously one of theirs, so got re-shared: http://www.freewoodpost.com/2012/03/13/mitt-romney-i-can-relate-to-black-people-my-ancestors-once-owned-slaves/ The article is completely false, as http://www.freewoodpost.com/disclaimer/ indicates. If you view source, you see itemtype="http://schema.org/Article" though (and a load more metadata, ogp etc). I was wondering whether an addition such as http://schema.org/SatiricalArticle could ever get traction. My initial conclusion is 'no', ... since most of the obvious applications of 'SatiricalArticle' would likely slow the viral spread of fake outrageous news around the Web, and so get little support from publishers like the above, or http://www.landoverbaptist.org/ http://christwire.org/ http://www.theonion.com/ http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/ etc. But you never know, there might be some other incentives (e.g. disclaimers?) that could support such an idea. So I thought I'd float the suggestion. If anyone here happens to know such publishers, I'm curious of their perspective. Would a machine-readable indicator of 'satire' be interesting to any of them? Presumably they get much of their traffic from controversy caused by reposting shocking "news". Of course there's always scope for that same metadata to be created by third parties, but that's an old old story (http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-PICS-labels/ etc). cheers, Dan
Received on Sunday, 29 April 2012 20:44:08 UTC