Re:Spoofing Google Search Results
by saagarjha on Saturday February 16, 2019 @05:27AM
(#19178045)
> unfortunately Knowledge Graph doesn’t tell you where it got the information from
This is really the biggest problem I have with the cards. They don't tell you anything at all about their source, and lead people to believe that Google itself has verified and checked the source of the information, making it very easy to treat them as "facts". A somewhat (possibly overly?) cynical viewpoint is that Google likes to keep it this way, since it makes it seem as if they're the arbiter of that information.
Re:Spoofing Google Search Results
by kibwen on Saturday February 16, 2019 @08:23AM
(#19178446)
Wikipedia's text content is licensed under CC-BY-SA, which means that if Google isn't giving attribution somewhere then they would be in violation of the license.
Re:Spoofing Google Search Results
by btown on Saturday February 16, 2019 @10:14AM
(#19178883)
Facts may not be copyrightable, but by academic standards they should still be sourced. Google doesn't derive shareholder value from training people to seek primary sources, though.
Re:Spoofing Google Search Results
by okket on Saturday February 16, 2019 @05:19AM
(#19178022)
The example links do not work for me, meaning they show sane results. Is this issue fixed? Or is uBlock interfering? Or is my "Google location" (Europe/Germany) changing the results?
Re:Spoofing Google Search Results
by cyborgx7 on Saturday February 16, 2019 @05:21AM
(#19178028)
>Update - Two days after the publication of this blog post, Google seems to have fixed the issue, after TechCrunch asked the firm whether it was planning on taking any action. Although no official announcement was made, it looks like the kgmid parameter has been disabled. As a result, the flaw described below is no longer working.
This is really the biggest problem I have with the cards. They don't tell you anything at all about their source, and lead people to believe that Google itself has verified and checked the source of the information, making it very easy to treat them as "facts". A somewhat (possibly overly?) cynical viewpoint is that Google likes to keep it this way, since it makes it seem as if they're the arbiter of that information.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freebase
For simple bibliographical information like who someone’s spouses is, it is not copyrightable, and no attribution is needed.
Maybe the change hasn't been rolled out completely yet? I'm in Germany.
Very top of the article.
Define "fake results".