UMBC ebiquity

Archive for the '' Category

Fact checking the fact checkers fact check metadata

May 13th, 2017, by Tim Finin, posted in, Semantic Web

TL;DR: Some popular fact checking sites are saying that false is true and true is false in their embedded metadata 

I’m a fan of the claimReview tags for rendering fact checking results as metadata markup embedded in the html that can be easily understood by machines. Google gave a plug for this last Fall and more recently announced that it has broadened its use of the fact checking metadata tags.  It’s a great idea and could help limit the spread of false information on the Web.  But its adoption still has some problems.

Last week I checked to see if the Washington Post is using’s ClaimReview in their Fact Checker pieces. They are (that’s great!) but WaPo seems to have misunderstood the semantics of the markup by reversing the reviewRating scale, with the result that it assets the opposite of its findings.  For an example, look at this Fact Checker article reviewing claims made by HHS Secretary Tom Price on the AHCA which WaPo rates as being very false, but gives it a high reviewRating of 5 on their scale from 1 to 6.  According to the specification, this means it’s mostly true, rather than false. ??

WaPo’s Fact Check article ratings assign a checkmark for a claim they find true and from one to four ‘pinocchios‘ for claims they find to be partially (one) or totally (four) false. They also give no rating for claims they find unclear and a ‘flip-flop‘ rating for claims on which a person has been inconsistent. Their reviewRating metadata specifies a worstRating of 1 and a bestRating of 6. They apparently map a checkmark to 1 and ‘four pinocchios‘ to 5. That is, their mapping is {-1:’unclear’; 1:’check mark’, 2:’1 pinocchio’, …, 5:’4 pinocchios’, 6:’flip flop’}. It’s clear from the ClaimReview examples that that a higher rating number is better and it’s implicit that it is better for a claim to be true.  So I assume that the WaPo FactCheck should reverse its scale, with ‘flip-flop‘ getting a 1, ‘four pinocchios‘ mapped to a 2 and a checkmark assigned a 6.

WaPo is not the only fact checking site that has got this reversed. Aaron Bradley pointed out early in April that Politifact had it’s scale reversed also. I checked last week and confirmed that this was still the case, as this example shows. I sampled a number of Snope’s ClaimCheck ratings and found that all of them were -1 on a scale of -1..+1, as in this example.

It’s clear how this mistake can happen.  Many fact checking sites are motivated by identifying false facts, so have native scales that go from the mundane true statement to the brazen and outrageous completely false.  So a mistake of directly mapping this linear scale into the numeric one from low to high is not completely surprising.

While the fact checking sites that have made this mistake are run by dedicated and careful investigators, the same care has not yet been applied in implementing the semantic metadata embedded in their pages on for their sites.

Google search now includes fact check data

April 8th, 2017, by Tim Finin, posted in RDF,, Semantic Web, Web

Google claims on their search blog that “Fact Check now available in Google Search and News”.  We’ve sampled searches on Google and found that some results did indeed include Fact Check data from’s ClaimReview markup.  So we are including the following markup on this page.

    <script type="application/ld+json">
      "@context": "",
      "@type": "ClaimReview",
      "datePublished": "2016-04-08",
      "url": "
        "@type": "CreativeWork",
          "@type": "Organization",
          "name": "Google"
        "datePublished": "2016-04-07"
      "claimReviewed": "Fact Check now available in Google search and news",
        "@type": "Organization",
        "Name": "UMBC Ebiquity Research Group",
        "url": ""
        "@type": "Rating",
        "ratingValue": "5",
        "bestRating": "5",
        "worstRating": "1",
        "alternateName" : "True"

Google notes that

“Only publishers that are algorithmically determined to be an authoritative source of information will qualify for inclusion. Finally, the content must adhere to the general policies that apply to all structured data markup, the Google News Publisher criteria for fact checks, and the standards for accountability and transparency, readability or proper site representation as articulated in our Google News General Guidelines. If a publisher or fact check claim does not meet these standards or honor these policies, we may, at our discretion, ignore that site’s markup.”

and we hope that the algorithms will find us to be an authoritative source of information.

You can see the actual markup by viewing this page’s source or looking at the markup that Google’s structured data testing tool finds on it here by clicking on ClaimReview in the column on the right.

Update: We’ve been algorithmically determined to be an authoritative source of information!

You are currently browsing the archives for the category.

  Home | Archive | Login | Feed