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 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 clarkdd@gmail.com *Sent: *Thursday, February 4, 2021 6:50 PM *To: *Wikimedia Mailing List 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, 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> wrote:
Does Wikinews cover this aspect?
*From:* Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org on behalf of Chris Gates via Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org *Sent:* Thursday, February 4, 2021 8:20 PM *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org *Cc:* Chris Gates 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-c...
Best,
Verm
On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 2:17 PM Leinonen Teemu 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 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 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 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
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/
Oops, the better link for the Schema.org work to support fact checking (some even still in progress after 3 years) probably should have been this: http://blog.schema.org/2017/08/schemaorg-33-news-fact-checking.html
Thad https://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry/ https://calendly.com/thadguidry/
Thad,
Thank you for the information about schema.org with respect to ClaimReviewhttps://schema.org/ClaimReview.
A point of disagreement with that schema.org model is the ratings system concept (x out of N). Instead, for discussion, I prefer a more annotational approach for fact checking with typed annotations produced and consumed by both humans and software tools. That is, I prefer the concept of an informational message, warning, error system for fact checking resembling software IDE’s. Such a model is intuitive, can be readily formalized, made machine-utilizable, and typed annotations – informational messages, warnings, and errors – can be merged from multiple sources or service providers.
Best regards, Adam
P.S.: As interesting, a new W3C Community Group is launching on the topic of document services. The group intends to discuss and make new architecture and API to facilitate: spellchecking, grammar checking, proofreading, fact checking, mathematical proof checking, reasoning checking, argumentation checking, and narrative checking. If the group interests you, please do feel free to support the creation of the group: https://www.w3.org/community/groups/proposed/#services .
From: Thad Guidrymailto:thadguidry@gmail.com Sent: Friday, February 5, 2021 3:12 PM To: Discussion list for the Wikidata projectmailto:wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org Cc: wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org; Wikispore experimental projectmailto:wikispore@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikidata] [Wikimedia-l] Idea of a new project: Wikifacts ?
Oops, the better link for the Schema.org work to support fact checking (some even still in progress after 3 years) probably should have been this: http://blog.schema.org/2017/08/schemaorg-33-news-fact-checking.html 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 Kleinmailto:meta.sj@gmail.com Sent: Friday, February 5, 2021 2:42 PM To: Discussion list for the Wikidata projectmailto:wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org; Wikispore experimental projectmailto:wikispore@lists.wikimedia.org Cc: wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto: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.commailto: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 Clarkmailto:clarkdd@gmail.com Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2021 6:50 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing Listmailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Idea of a new project: Wikifacts ?
I proposed a project, WikiPragmaticahttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipragmatica, 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.commailto:galder158@hotmail.com> wrote: Does Wikinews cover this aspect?
From: Wikimedia-l <wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org> on behalf of Chris Gates via Wikimedia-l <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2021 8:20 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> Cc: Chris Gates <vermont@vtwp.orgmailto: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-c...
Best, Verm
On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 2:17 PM Leinonen Teemu <teemu.leinonen@aalto.fimailto: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.orgmailto:Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto: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.orgmailto:Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
-- Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266
