There is well worded keyword dense quotation in the beginning of the article in question [1] that the rest of the article proves wrong, as latter [2] article analyses. But how is poor machine supposed to understand this?
Ah, those semantic web utopian visions, with humans producing content gently semantically marked for machines to "see" all those negatively ironic peculiar ambiguities and relations.
Now, that problematic "quotation" in [1] is in fact:
<div class="text-2 text parbase section">
<p style="margin-left: 40px;">"[…]"</p>
</div>
i.e. not even marked as quotation (eg `<q cite="[…]">[…]</q>`). Sigh.
Why the hell should we help the comprehension of a machine of giant corporation that will use our content to sell ads on their results?
Can we ask ourselves also this question before thinking how WE should bend to someone else's machine?
Because it helps the comprehension of all the machines, belonging to giant corporations or otherwise. And if they understand the site, they can use that information to help us, the users, by presenting relevant search results about caramelising onions and the semantic web and so forth. Yes, it will help Google sell advertising, but the benefits to the rest of us far outweigh that minor inconvenience to some people's idealism and politics.
This is why the semantic web lets you clearly mark up wrong information being cited, which, in the words of the Wikipedia "is primarily used to mark text that is mistaken".
Haha, just kidding. Just reminding you that there's nothing semantic about HTML :) The strikethrough is kind of deprecated, but there's no good semantic replacement, because the semantic web is actually a complete joke.
Sounds like a good place for a microformat [1] that lets search engines know that they shouldn't take a sentence as true e.g.
<div class="actually-wrong">takes 5 minutes</div>
Ooh, awesome - then we can persuade all those sites we keep hearing about to mark up their fake news using these microformats, and the world's information problems will be solved!
Ah, those semantic web utopian visions, with humans producing content gently semantically marked for machines to "see" all those negatively ironic peculiar ambiguities and relations.
Now, that problematic "quotation" in [1] is in fact:
i.e. not even marked as quotation (eg `<q cite="[…]">[…]</q>`). Sigh.[1] http://www.slate.com/articles/life/scocca/2012/05/how_to_coo... [2] http://gizmodo.com/googles-algorithm-is-lying-to-you-about-o...