Notes
From Fisheye
Contents |
Vocabulary
This is the vocabulary used when writing a lot of the early notes on Fisheye. We should adopt Annotea vocabulary where appropriate.
STORY or SUBJECT or MEDIA - source article being criticized (eg NYT article, online editorial, or blog post)
COMMENTARY - the document which supports the criticism (eg Wikipedia entry or blog post)
CRITICISM - the link between story and commentary on telecharger poker TODO: "criticism" could easy be taken as synonym for "commentary", maybe need a better term (or coin one).
USERS - anyone who views web content through fisheye client
SUBMITTERS - anyone who submits a link between commentary and media into the fisheye database
SOURCES or CRITICS - Identified producer of original content on web which serves as commentary on other media. (is "sources" amgibuous? could refer to subject)
Suggested Implementation
It seems clear we will be compatible with Annotea and that the first client will be derived from Annozilla and Annotools. Server code already exists. Data storage will be expressed via RDF.
Earlier notes:
Is there an existing implementation which could be used? An existing component which could be used? See Prior Efforts
Wherever possible, consider following standards:
- XPointer for page locations
- RDF system for commentaries, etc.
News stories have blocks of text highlighted and/or footnoted in various colors. Colors correspond to the type of criticism - eg unsupported statement, lack of context, false statement. Hovering the mouse pointer over the text/marker pops up a window with a list of applicable criticisms, brief descriptions and links to full criticism. Clicking on a link goes to the page containing the criticism and scrolls down to / highlights the relevant text.
When a contributor reads a bit of media criticism, it always includes a link to the thing being criticized. Contributor highlights a block of text in the media being criticized, and right-clicks on it. Gets a menu option to "submit criticism" which pops up a form. The forms has fields for the URL of the story being criticized and text to which the criticism applies (filled in automatically) and fields for the URL of the page which contains the criticism and the text which marks the start of the relevant criticism (which must be filled in manually). Contributor must write a one-sentence summary of the criticsm, and choose a type of criticism (unsupported statement vs. false dichotomy vs. unchallenged quote.)
Things to consider
The web browser plugin must be actively installed before anyone benefits. Of course, there is no way to actually edit a news story on the New York Times website. Only through the use of a plugin can the content served from a major publication be modified. As a result, this system will have little effect until a critical mass of news consumers choose to enable embedded criticism.
Some stories, particularly from wire services, may be reprinted widely. It would be efficient to detect that stories are the same and use the same criticism for each.
When stories are first published, there will be no embedded criticism. First, criticism must be written. Then, it must be added to the database. Perhaps consider a way to subscribe to future criticism of an article being read.
Needs to be safe from abuse. Welcome people of all stripes, but also need to prevent people from sabotaging the system by deleting links or submitting invalid criticism. Pragmatic concerns overwhelm principles, and may go with a moderator / approval / account process if it is more effective, even at expense of openness at first. Hopefully there will be enough support to manage an open system.
Op-Ed vs. news - system can be used on both but recognize opinion is subjective and this system does not encompass open debate - it is intended to challenge misstatements and poor logic, and arguably more useful when applied to material which appears to be objective and factual.
There may be multiple criticisms for the same or overlapping parts of text. Must accomodate this. Impacts display, eg many footnotes or overlapping highlights.
Because database works by linking blocks of text in source to criticism, links will become invalid if source text is even slightly modified. Criticisms which don't match the source text show up at bottom of page so that contributors can update the entry to match current text. If criticism text is modified, links to full page but alerts readers that link is broken so that contributors can repair it.
URL matching needs to be intelligent because story ID might be in POST arguments, and there are an infinite number of URL's which resolve to the same document. Contributors might be asked to derive a rule for matching URL's.
Plugins for other browsers might be implemented, or the system might be implemented via a proxy server and available to any browser.
There needs to be some system for correcting for bad input. Criticisms need not speak for the correctness of every word of the linked page, but the text in the linked page which is marked as applying to the news article should be correct.
Contributors need not write original criticism, but can in fact do so by linking from an article to another which contradicts it. Keeps things fast because need not wait for a criticism of that specific article to be written.
Perhaps criticism link can be left empty and one-sentence summary can be the entire criticism.
Criticism voting/ranking?
Tie media / commentary / criticism into peer review system such as digg?
Support for multiple languages.
Possible Sources
Examples of sources for fisheye annotations:
- Wikipedia (for factual references, offloads debate onto that system)
- NewsTrust (embed trust ratings next to headline, avg rating next to author and publication)
- Opencongress (bills and names of congresspeople)
- MediaMatters and other news watchdog organizations
- ThinkProgress and other partisan sites (but objective criticisms only not partisan bickering)
- SourceWatch (highlight people's names first time they appear on page)
- CIA World Factbook
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2187rank.html
- OpenSecrets - Political funding http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.asp?cid=N00024931
- Right Web - left-partisan sourcewatch-style site
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/3273.html
http://www.cjr.org/ http://www.factcheck.org/ kazino Wikipedia as a criticism source
One shortcoming of this system is that criticism may be subjective or even factually incorrect. It is not within the scope of this system to be an ultimate arbiter of what is factually true.
Wikipedia does encompass a method for resolution of factual disputes. Using wikipedia as a source of criticism is encouraged because of this.
