RE: vocab idea: SatiricalArticle

In an attempt to surgically extract all humor from this subject...wouldn't satire be a flag as part of a larger article type? I can maybe reach out - I have some contacts in the comedy world.

- Peter


-----Original Message-----
From: PDEC Research [mailto:lists@personaldataecosystem.org]
Sent: Sun 4/29/2012 8:40 PM
To: Dan Brickley
Cc: public-vocabs@w3.org
Subject: Re: vocab idea: SatiricalArticle
 
You could just add a parody bit. Then if the whole content is odd, the processor can throw a parody exception. 

On Apr 29, 2012, at 1:43 PM, 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
> 





******************************************************************************
Nothing contained in this e-mail shall (a) be considered a legally binding agreement, amendment or modification of any agreement with Marvel, each of which requires a fully executed agreement to be received by Marvel or (b) be deemed approval of any product, packaging, advertising or promotion material, which may only come from Marvel's Legal Department.
******************************************************************************
THINK GREEN - SAVE PAPER - THINK BEFORE YOU PRINT!