Minutes: Credible Web CG (11 April 2018)


  1. Approach (with ClaimReview Demo)


# [Sandro Hawke] Meeting agenda: (darn ugly github URLs)

# [Sandro Hawke] I’d love a scribe volunteer before the meeting

# [Sandro Hawke] Present+

# [Gregg Kellogg] Present+

# [Aviv Ovadya] Present+

# [Davide Ceolin] Present+

# [Katie Haritos-Shea] Present+

# [sam boyer] also present here :)

# [An Xiao Mina] Present+

# [michel weksler] technical issues, i’ll dial back momentarily…

# [Vagner Diniz] Present+

# [Sandro Hawke] sandro says lets scribe like this

# Sandro Hawke says lets scribe like this

# [michel weksler] present+

# Sandro Hawke says welcome

# [Gregg Kellogg] Agenda:

# Sandro Hawke says : I will chair this meeting

# [Katie Haritos-Shea] To help me scribe, please say your name when you start speaking

# Sandro Hawke says any questions about scribing?

# .. we will use W3C conventions for other scribing, like PROPOSED and RESOLVED

# .. any thoughts on today’s agenda? anything we should add

# .. please use Zulip chat not Zoom chat, for authentication, search, archiving, etc

# .. Calendar: Looking ahead, trip people may be taking that are relevant to this CG

# [Sandro Hawke] Who is going to webconf in Lyon - Week of April 22

# Sandro Hawke says for me next trip is the Web Conference. Who is going in Lyon in Week of April 22nd

# [Katie Haritos-Shea] [someone] says If we want to meet at TPAC, we should try to reserve that

# [Scott Yates] Perhaps we should build a shared calendar with all the events?

# [Sandro Hawke] Who is going to TPAC

# [Katie Haritos-Shea] I am going to TPAC all week.

# [Katie Haritos-Shea] +1

# [An Xiao Mina] Misinfoweb Track is April 25:

# Sandro Hawke says : I’m seeing some yes, some no. We should probably get a room. Normally CGs only get 2 hours. I may be able to get more

# .. Who is going to W3C AC meeting in Berlin in May?

# [Scott Yates] I’d be happy with a google shared calendar, and could be in charge of updating that if it would help. Feel free to send me items.

# [An Xiao Mina] We maintain an events calendar for Credibility Coalition on a spreadsheet, and I’m happy to coordinate with whoever maintains this CG’s calendar

# Sandro Hawke says Introductions: I think Zoom has everybody in the same order, as they arrived. Oh, no, I guess not. So, we’ll do introductions in the order people typed “present+” on Zulip

# [rhiaro] present+

# [Reto Gmür] present+

# Sandro Hawke says Please type in your own intro, to save the scribe

# [Newton Calegari] present+

# [Jon Udell] present+

# [Gregg Kellogg] Hi, my name is Gregg Kellogg. I have a history of working on RDF technologies: RDFa, Microdata, JSON-LD, etc. I also maintain a comprehensive RDF library in Ruby. I’m co-chair of the JSON-LD CG and editor of the JSON-LD 1.1 specs. Note that JSON-LD is slated to have a Working Group chartered starting in June.

# [Stuart Myles, Director of Information Management at the AP] present+

# [Gregg Kellogg] CSVW (CSV on the Web) is another technology I’ve worked on that may be useful for this group.

# [An Xiao Mina] Interest in broccoli emoji correlates with interest in internet health, apparently :)

# [Katie Haritos-Shea] I work for Deque, and am AC Rep for Knowbility (both Accessibility). Have been on W3C WGs continuously since 2001, mostly involved in Accessibility groups (Chair WAI IG), Privacy IG (IAPP Cert) and Web Payments

# [Aviv Ovadya] Been working primarily on misinformation issues for around 2 years. My report on this coming (soon) from Tow Center for Digital Journalism; now I’m at the new Center for Social Media Responsibility at the University of Michigan. Been heavily involved in this work from the beginning. I also used to hangout in the w3c area at MIT and helped a bit with Tabulator. I co-authored the broccoli emoji proposal.

# [rhiaro] I’m sorry, my connection is restarting every 5 minutes, so I’m just going to be text only from now on. I am Amy Guy, recently but no longer of University of Edinburgh, MIT/W3C and Social Web WG. I currently work for OCCRP (the Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project) as a software developer; they’re an investigative journalism org, but I’m not representing them here. This is for my own interest. I like open data stuff and linked data stuff and decentralisation stuff.

# [An Xiao Mina] I am An Xiao Mina, call me An. Co-chair with Sandro and completely new to the web standards world but have long been looking at misinformation and social media. Director of product at Meedan, where we build tools for collaborative verification, and affiliated with the Berkman Klein Center, have been looking at networked journalism and networked movements in global contexts. Co-founded the Credibility Coalition, which helped formulate this group. Our focus is on statistical validation of indicators of content credibility that journalists and media researchers are considering, through an annotation workflow that we tested with 40 articles. Will be presenting at the Web Conference (just there on April 25), and here in Perugia, Italy, this week for the International Journalism Festival.

# [Davide Ceolin] Hi, my name is Davide Ceolin. I am a tenure-track researcher at CWI, Amsterdam. My primary focus is on online information quality. Working towards a lightweight semantics for information quality to bridge high-level requirements and theoretical approaches. Very recently organized a multidisciplinary (CS, Phil, Social Science, etc.) Lorentz workshop on information quality. In the past, I graduated at VU Amsterdam, working on trust in Web data, and contributed to W3C CSVW.

# [sam boyer] i’m sam, i work for Stripe (but that’s irrelevant here). i got interested in information quality through my work with social movements, most recently OWS, back in 2011. i’ve worked on some web applications that were intended to promote high quality information channels, but nothing seriously panned out. In the intervening years i’ve kept as close tabs as possible on the evolving conversation around info quality on the internet. Very excited to see actual work we can do to make this astoundingly difficult and crucial problem better.

# [Reto Gmür] Reto Gmür. AC rep for FactsMission. Goal of the company to use Linked Data technologies to promote ability to distinguish facts from noise/bs/fake news.

# [Vagner Diniz] @vagner diniz I am the head of Web Technologies Study Center at in Brazil. has been a W3C member since 2006 and host the W3C Brazil office since 2008. core activity is the Internet domain name registration for the country code .BR. I am an electronic engineer with masters in Public Administration. Our main concern is how to make Web more trustworthy considering our local agenda with a general elections coming soon next October.

# [Newton Calegari] I’m Newton Calegari, I work at the Web Technologies Study Center at in Brazil. I’ve worked on the Data on the Web Best Practices WG as editor of the DWBP recommendation. I’m interested in semantic web, linked data, and AI.

# [Jon Udell] Jon Udell, director of integration at I’m looking for ways to improve the quality of the ClaimReview metadata that’s being produced by leading fact-checking orgs, and used (in a limited way) by Google and Bing.

# [Stuart Myles, Director of Information Management at the AP] I am Stuart Myles, Director of Information Management at The Associated Press in NYC. I direct metadata strategy throughout AP’s global news operations. I am also Chairman of the Board of the IPTC, the news technology standards body, where a particular area of interest is trust in the media.

# [Scott Yates] I’m Scott Yates, Entrepreneur in Residence at CableLabs. CableLabs is the research arm of the cable and broadband providers around the world. I’m a former journalist who has started three companies. Cable has invested billions in broadband, and is interested in making sure that people don’t lose an underlying trust in the internet. I’m exploring new ideas that CableLabs might be able to participate in. This is also my first ever W3C group, so I appreciate in advance your forgiveness for any goofs I make in following the customs and traditions of this type of group.

# Sandro Hawke says Group Status, History, W3C CG vs WG, Charter process

# .. most of you are somewhat familair with W3C. Need WG for a rec. A CG is not that. A CG we can start one to do anything. We want to work more like a CG to have telcons and deliverables

# [Gregg Kellogg] The JSON-LD CG (JSON for Linking Data) has also operated like a Working Group.

# Sandro Hawke says we are not required to have a Charter, but I want us to come up with one to not waste folks time. It will help with consensus.

Some background. Credibility Coalition was previously Credibility Indicators WG and I thought it was interesting work, but that it would need more standards focus, and would need buy-in from the platforms to succeed. So asked about moving that part of the work to W3C, with a more formal process and test suites and W3C-style specs and the people in the group and the platforms were supportive.

# [An Xiao Mina] Column D here (should be readable by anyone) but it’s not super structured:

# Sandro Hawke says we look forward to who will join from the platforms

# [Katie Haritos-Shea] I think charter is a great idea

# [Gregg Kellogg] /me Got to go, see everyone next time.

# [Scott Yates] Column D here (should be readable by anyone) but it’s not super structured:

# [An Xiao Mina] If it’s OK with you, I’ll use this as the start of a calendar.

# [Scott Yates] Please do — I maintain the calendar with misinfo-related events as we become aware of them

# Sandro Hawke says the Mission is hopefully a consensus, it is on the Community page. Helping people tell what is credible while NOT assisting with censorship.

While part of this is helping Google and FB surface credibility, I’m hearing people want it to be more than that

# [Sandro Hawke] The mission of the W3C Credible Web Community Group is to help shift the Web toward more trustworthy content without increasing censorship or social division. We want users to be able to tell when content is reliable, accurate, and shared in good faith, and to help them steer away from deceptive content. At the same time, we affirm the need for users to find the content they want and to interact freely in the communities they choose. To balance any conflict between these goals, we are committed to providing technologies which keep end-users in control of their Web experience.

Approach (with ClaimReview Demo)

# [Sandro Hawke] The group’s primary strategy involves data sharing on the Web, in the style of, using existing W3C data standards like JSON-LD. We believe significant progress toward our goals can be reached by properly specifying “credibility indicators”, a vocabulary/schema for data about content and the surrounding ecosystem, which can help a person and/or machine decide whether a content item should be trusted.

# Jon Udell says most news is using If you look at politifact you will find metatdata as microdatat or a slug of Json, it is an assertion and rating. The main use is if you were to do a Google or Bing search, you would see a label

# Sandro Hawke says : can we get a quick demo? Let’s all try this

# [Jon Udell] Temperature increases for the likely hottest years on record (2014, 2015 and 2016) are “meaningless” because they are “well within the margin of error.”

# Jon Udell says I am going to give you an actual claim. The first result labeled by which is providing the claim review. Hmmm today I do not see the label

# [An Xiao Mina] I can reliably find examples with this query: hillary clinton emails politifact

# [Reto Gmür] Write claim reviews for tweets: :) or install the plugin for chrome .

# Jon Udell says did you see a label? I search Obama Kenya, first two hits are from Snopes with ClaimReview tags

# Sandro Hawke says are other seeing this? So Claim Mark up is how it gets there. People put claimreview markup on their site, the search engines crawl it, and then can use that in labeling search results

# Jon Udell says : I thing Google and Bing only do that with ClaimReviews from sites they trust

# michel weksler says That is potentially problematic. How is it decided who to trust? There are two sides here

# [Stuart Myles, Director of Information Management at the AP] a small set of fact checking organizations work with Facebook (including the AP)

# [Vagner Diniz] Who checks the fackcheckers?

# [Reto Gmür] The claims in Claimreviews can in turn be claimreviewed

# Jon Udell says : so what is NOT happening here is the TARGET of the claim. Ideally you would like to have when that article is surfaced bc search engines or my client UA does that for me. We use web annotations and scoop up, and we could project that out onto the target claims. I set out doing that - I learned that the targets are NOT specified or are speicific in a weird way. The claim review metadata chuncks are NOT doing what I and others had imagined. Bing and Google confirmed this. They would like it to

# .. it is not clear where in the it would be marked up. It is asking busy people to do more work

# [Scott Yates]

# Jon Udell says you can imagine the detail. My conclusion is on top of jhpw to populate the schema and nor create extra work for producers our work might make their jobs easier

# [Sandro Hawke]

# Sandro Hawke says is a reformatting of data put together for what are possible properties to indicate Credibility. Includes both wild ideas and well-thought-out bits. It is not exhaustive. Very narrow vs this hundred possible properties

One organizing aspect might be: First party vs Third Party. 1st party means lets make our own web pages more credible. The Trust Project is furthest along in that direction, I think. Like, how do legit news orgs expose themselves in a way to show they are legit? Not sure the TP indicators are all in cciv yet, but I think they should be.

Third party indicators is like Claim Review.

# Sandro Hawke says it might make sense to have to groups. First Party and Third Party/Fact Checkling and Third Party/Article Inspection

# [Reto Gmür] q+

# Sandro Hawke says please type what is most interesting to you

# [Aviv Ovadya] This is a potentially relevant framework I developed for credibility coalition to help understand the types of signals and break them down into categories.

# Reto Gmür says I do not think this is a great approach - I am not sure this fits into the mainstream. It may indicate Education . I think the approach to make statement clear like is used in the scientific community. Partially overlaps with Third Party Indicators. Bringing a debate similar to scientific community down to the microlevel

# [sam boyer] i could not agree more, @Reto Gmür

# Sandro Hawke says people will probably want to take different tracks here - we may have several different strategies people want to pursue. If so, we should split it up into people who agree on an approach can work together

# Reto Gmür says make things so that they can be discussed and verified

# Sandro Hawke says we can go in separate parallel paths with some way of checking each other. People deserve a place to try to refine their ideas. I think most on the call would agree

# Sandro Hawke says can you please identify what appraoch

# .. and interesting components should be controllable by the user and on the UA, and allow them to display this credibility flag.

# Aviv Ovadya says One of the things i ve seen in this space, here is this idea that we could creat e this W3C manadate dset of indicators. But the other way is there are these existing standards and to use them with a taxonomy. This could be used tomorrow. then we could see what is getting most use. Lowest hanging fruit. Whether it be JSON LD - if you are doing this here is how you can share it

# Sandro Hawke says one might do that transition, pre-browser-adoption, using the Web Annotations framework as others have suggested

# Jon Udell says this eventually becomes infrastructure baked into the browser. Not via a proxy or extension. Must be the native browser

# [michel weksler] +1

# Sandro Hawke says : Future Meetings. I am guessing this time works. Do we want to continue next week. Same time same station

# [Katie Haritos-Shea] shall we say the next couple of week

# .. On Outreach, it is good to get people on board early. They will have more ownership. I am hoping each of you can start reaching out or start thinking about people. Please slet me know

# .. Closing thoughts?

# .. Thinking about possible F2F. It is already April, so summer is a possibility. I imagine July, maybe. FB said they could probably host in Silicon Valley

# michel weksler says : yes, it would be good to do it before TPAC. I may be able to lost at AirBnB in San Fran

# Reto Gmür says : there is a financial aspect to meeting F2F

# [Katie Haritos-Shea] scribe out

# [Katie Haritos-Shea] you bet!!