How to record Facts for human and machine consumption and the usage of those recorded Facts by humans, machines, news orgs, communities, etc. is something that was only lightly documented about 4+ years ago? I don't know what happened to that document but thought it was very useful for getting everyone level set. Some of it was glanced over by Schema.org members at the time when Schema 3.2 <http://blog.schema.org/2017/03/schemaorg-32-release-courses-fact.html> was released. I would love to see it brought back to life where the community could comment on it, so that we have clear signals of just what gaps remain in Wikimedia's ecosystem for capturing Facts and using them. In doing so, we could invite fact check orgs of how/where they themselves see gaps remaining in Wikimedia's ecosystem to support their missions such as: https://www.poynter.org/about-the-international-fact-checking-network/ https://reporterslab.org/ https://fullfact.org/ After doing those round table discussions on a collaborative document, then I think a clearer picture of what is really needed would naturally appear. Thad https://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry/ https://calendly.com/thadguidry/

Thank you. I am glad that these ideas are of some interest. From: Samuel Klein<mailto:meta.sj@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, February 5, 2021 2:42 PM To: Discussion list for the Wikidata project<mailto:wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org>; Wikispore experimental project<mailto:wikispore@lists.wikimedia.org> Cc: wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org<mailto:wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org> Subject: Re: [Wikidata] [Wikimedia-l] Idea of a new project: Wikifacts ? Sounds like a great Page/Data/Media interplay, of interest to Wikispore if there's any need for customization. SJ On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 2:37 PM Adam Sobieski <adamsobieski@hotmail.com<mailto:adamsobieski@hotmail.com>> wrote: A “Wikifacts” sister project is a great idea. “Wikifacts” seems distinct from both Wikinews and Wikidata. With some schemas for facts, defining their structure and interrelations, one could, however, utilize Wikidata as a backend. Brainstorming, while I’m sure that those in these mailing lists are more familiar with what’s possible with wiki templates, with a “Wikifacts” sister project, one could envision a wiki template for explicit facts. Perhaps such a wiki template could resemble: {{fact|User content goes here.}} or {{fact|F12345678|User content goes here.}} With such a wiki template, editors could add explicit facts to Wikinews and Wikipedia articles. End-users could hover over explicit facts in Wikinews or Wikipedia articles to view information (e.g. the number of informational messages, warnings, or errors) about the facts in tooltips and could click on a fact – or on a superscript hyperlink symbol – to navigate to the fact’s “Wikifacts” article. The use of explicit facts in Wikinews or Wikipedia articles could, potentially, create new “Wikifacts” articles or synchronize with existing “Wikifacts” articles. Whenever a fact were updated or annotated via the “Wikifacts” project website, the editors of any dependent Wikinews or Wikipedia articles could receive emails, resembling how they can opt to watch articles for edits. Wikinews and Wikipedia editors could receive emails so as to be able to revisit an article if or when any facts upon which the article depends change. A “Wikifacts” project could also serve as a fact-checking resource for a set of end-users broader than the editors of Wikinews and Wikipedia articles. Through an API, end-users could perform real-time fact checking via “Wikifacts” while authoring or reviewing documents. Best regards, Adam P.S.: Thank you for the information about the Wikipragmatica proposal. From: Douglas Clark<mailto:clarkdd@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2021 6:50 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List<mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Idea of a new project: Wikifacts ? I proposed a project, WikiPragmatica<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipragmatica>ca>, that can support fake news detection. The retained context of the paraphrase graph can identify fake news patterns similar to what MIT does with their detector. On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 12:42 PM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <galder158@hotmail.com<mailto:galder158@hotmail.com>> wrote: Does Wikinews cover this aspect? From: Wikimedia-l <wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org<mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org>> on behalf of Chris Gates via Wikimedia-l <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org<mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>> Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2021 8:20 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org<mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>> Cc: Chris Gates <vermont@vtwp.org<mailto:vermont@vtwp.org>> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Idea of a new project: Wikifacts ? Hello, Independent of my opinions on the validity of such a new Wikimedia project, there is currently an experiment of similar goals (and potentially structure) over at Twitter: https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/product/2021/introducing-birdwatch-a-… Best, Verm On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 2:17 PM Leinonen Teemu <teemu.leinonen@aalto.fi<mailto:teemu.leinonen@aalto.fi>> wrote: Hi all, Has there been any discussion to start a new Wikimedia project focusing on fact checking? Fact checking of course is in the core of editing Wikipedia, but I was thinking about dedicated wiki-site that is dedicated for fact checking of current events and news. Why this would be important? (1) There are many fact checking site in the English speaking world but much less elsewhere. I am afraid that there is still greater need for fact checking in the rest of the world. {{Citation needed}} (2) Our community is very well educated to do fact checking the wiki-way. Again internationally, many of our community members are real fact champions in their home countries and language groups. The practice of Wikipedia could be applied to fact checking of fast moving current events and news, too. (3) This could help us to get new young people to the movement, as editing Wikipedias is not anymore so easy to start (because they are so good already). (4) In many parts of the world, fact checking can also be dangerous. With our anonymous and community driven practices and services we could protect the fact checkers in many parts of the world. I am not sure what is the state of the Wikinews, but my impression is that it is not really working. It was a good idea, but maybe wiki or wiki-way is not the way to produce news. Also the beautiful idea of citizen journalism has not really become reality. Maybe we could try if wiki and the wki-way works better in fact checking. Peace, - Teemu _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org<mailto:Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org>?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org<mailto:Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org>?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org<mailto:Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata -- Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266

thanks for the interesting proposal and discussion, Adam and others. There have been recent proposals to extend and refine the schema.org/ClaimReview model, see Open Claims [1] by Boland et al. as well as my work on Credibility Reviews [2]. I agree that there's an opportunity for Wikimedia to capture more explicitly information it's already generating: at the moment Wikipedia and Wikidata can already be searched for facts, but a lot of the discussions and deletions of claims which did not make the cut are somewhat "lost". It would be great to be able to search for all these claims which have been removed and to have a record as to why they were not deemed to be "factual enough" (and of course, the same for those claims that do appear: why are these considered "factual"). Similarly, there are discussions about which sources are considered reputable (credible) and which aren't. Again, it's not easy to access this information (especially automatically), but a wikifacts/wikiclaims project could help by providing a way of capturing this more explicitly (a big challenge is how to do this without introducing a lot of overhead to the editors/contributors). [1] http://www.semantic-web-journal.net/content/beyond-facts-survey-and-concept… *under review* [2] https://arxiv.org/abs/2008.12742 kind regards, Ronald On Fri, 5 Feb 2021 at 23:01, Adam Sobieski &lt;adamsobieski(a)hotmail.com&gt; wrote: