W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > April 2012

Re: vocab idea: SatiricalArticle

From: Christine Connors <cjmconnors@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2012 18:38:49 -0400
Message-Id: <18454BE4-072A-490D-86DF-0AF75F100D26@gmail.com>
Cc: "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
I think having it as an option for direct or 3rd party use is a fine idea. After all, many news publishers have a tag for feeds of 'strange' news like Reuters' Oddly Enough, why not take it a step further?


Sent from my iPad

On Apr 29, 2012, at 16:43, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> wrote:

> (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 Monday, 30 April 2012 11:52:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:48:45 UTC