maartenzam
commented
1 month ago Probably the easiest thing to do is copying and editing the html from the 2020 Tracker:
<h5 id="source">Who is making the attribution, against whom?</h5>
<ul>
<li><strong>Source of Allegation</strong> (free text). The original source of the interference allegation.</li>
<li>
<strong>Source Nation</strong> (country). The country where the source of the interference allegation originates. Since the scope of this dataset is interference in the U.S., the most common source nation for allegations is the United States. The source nation does not necessarily denote the actor was associated with a national government.
</li>
<li>
<strong>Source Category</strong> (binary, select all that apply).
<ul class="inner">
<li><strong>Civil Society Organization.</strong> A nonprofit, non-governmental, non-media entity, typically a university or think tank.</li>
<li><strong>Foreign Government Body.</strong> A non-U.S. government entity.</li>
<li><strong>Government.</strong> Government agencies, elected representatives, and officials, even if quoted anonymously.</li>
<li><strong>Influential Individual.</strong> A noteworthy individual, not currently affiliated with another category, who is deemed nationally recognizable or operating in the public sphere.</li>
<li><strong>Media.</strong> Only applies if a news organization makes the allegation on the basis of its own investigation. A media organization reporting on an allegation made by someone else (e.g. an anonymous government official) is not included.</li>
<li><strong>Private Consultancy.</strong> A company engaged in private monitoring and risk consulting, typically in the field of cybersecurity.</li>
<li><strong>Technology Company.</strong> A company that operates a social media platform or offers a technology service.</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><strong>Disinformant</strong> (free text). Brief description of the actor purportedly responsible for the interference attempt.</li>
<li><strong>Disinformant Nation</strong> (free text). The country where the interference originates, according to the source. When an allegation comes from a non-state political actor, this field is the nation of origin of that non-state political actor. This does not necessarily denote an actor is associated with the national government.</li>
<li>
<strong>Attribution Type</strong> (binary, select all that apply).
<ul class="inner">
<li><strong>Direct Attribution.</strong> The source directly accuses the disinformant of malicious political behavior.</li>
<li><strong>Proxy/Inferred Attribution.</strong> The source does not make a direct attribution, but clearly states that the activity is likely associated with the disinformant or strongly implies the accusation is directed at the disinformant.</li>
<li><strong>Non-Aligned Commercial Activity.</strong> The interference consists of malicious commercial activity rather than a politically motivated information operation.</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
<h5 id="description-link">What was the attribution?</h5>
<ul>
<li><strong>Short title</strong> (free text).</li>
<li><strong>Short description</strong> (free text). One to three sentence description of the allegation, alleged activity, and attribution.</li>
<li><strong>Link to attribution</strong> (link).</li>
<li>If the attribution is to Facebook and was removed by Facebook for coordinated inauthentic behavior, additional data is available. These variables are an updated version of Sima Basel and Matt Suiche’s <a href="https://si.ma/fb-cib/" target="_blank">OSINT analysis</a> of Facebook removals for coordinated inauthentic behavior. See Basel’s data <a href="https://github.com/simabasel/cib-data" target="_blank">compilation</a> for variables and definitions.</li>
</ul>
<h5 id="activity-attribution-date">When did the interference and attribution occur?</h5>
<ul>
<li>
<strong>Date(s) of Activity.</strong> Date or range of purported activity..
<ul class="inner">
<li><strong>Start</strong> (date). Input if start date is known; if not, omit.</li>
<li><strong>End</strong> (date). Input if end date is known, if not, omit.</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><strong>Date of Attribution</strong> (date). Date corresponds to date of link of attribution. Particular attention should be given to this date by coders because it is used to determine the time span for collecting Attribution Impact metrics.</li>
</ul>
<h5 id="platform">On what platforms did the interference purportedly take place?</h5>
<ul>
<li>
<strong>Open Web</strong> (binary, select all that apply).
<ul class="inner">
<li><strong>State Media.</strong> A media outlet controlled by a government or government proxy, which is not editorially independent.</li>
<li><strong>Independent Media.</strong> Media outlets that are generally regarded as reputable, balanced, and independent of direct government control.</li>
<li><strong>"Junk News" Media.</strong> Unreliable, skewed, openly propagandistic, or fringe media outlets that lack discernable government ties.</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>
<strong>Social Media Platform</strong> (binary, select all that apply). Platform(s) on which alleged interference occurred.
<ul class="inner">
<li><strong>Facebook</strong></li>
<li><strong>Instagram</strong></li>
<li><strong>Twitter</strong></li>
<li><strong>YouTube</strong></li>
<li><strong>LinkedIn</strong></li>
<li><strong>Reddit</strong></li>
<li><strong>VK</strong></li>
<li><strong>Forum Board</strong> (binary)</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>
<strong>Messaging Platforms.</strong> (binary, select all that apply). Platform(s) on which alleged interference occurred.
<ul class="inner">
<li><strong>WhatsApp</strong></li>
<li><strong>Telegram</strong></li>
<li><strong>Signal</strong></li>
<li><strong>WeChat</strong></li>
<li><strong>SMS</strong></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><strong>Advertisement</strong> (binary).</li>
<li><strong>Email</strong> (binary).</li>
</ul>
<h5 id="method">How was the interference purportedly conducted?</h5>
<ul>
<li>
<strong>Method.</strong> Methods used in both the creation and the amplification of content related to the alleged foreign interference (binary, select all that apply).
<ul class="inner">
<li><strong>Brigading.</strong> Authentic social media accounts but evidence of coordinated amplification or harassment.</li>
<li><strong>Sockpuppets.</strong> Inauthentic social media accounts; evidence suggests a high likelihood of human operation.</li>
<li><strong>Botnets.</strong> Inauthentic social media accounts; evidence suggests a high likelihood of automation.</li>
<li><strong>Search Engine Manipulation.</strong> Manipulation of search queries and results; typosquatting.</li>
<li><strong>Hacking - DDoS.</strong> Distributed denial-of-service attack; malicious attempt to disrupt server traffic.</li>
<li><strong>Hacking - Data Exfiltration.</strong> Unauthorized movement of data; spearphishing; hack-and-release.</li>
<li><strong>Deceptive Content Manipulation.</strong> Deceptively edited content; deceptive co-option of existing brands; does not include use of deep learning processes.</li>
<li><strong>Deep Learning Processes.</strong> Augmented or fabricated content produced using deep learning processes; "deep fakes"; textual generation. Sometimes referred to as "<a href="https://securingdemocracy.gmfus.org/deepfake-myths-common-misconceptions-about-synthetic-media/" target="_blank">synthetic media</a>," although this term does not adequately distinguish between the use of deep learning and use of more basic manipulative techniques.</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
<h5>What was the impact of the allegation on online media discourse?</h5>
<ul>
<li>
<strong>Attribution Impact.</strong> Measures the spread of case-related articles and content over the seven days following a foreign interference allegation. It is a sum of Facebook engagements, Twitter shares, and Reddit engagements. Methodology is <span class="pseudolink" onclick="window.scrollsmooth('attribution-impact', 'collapsible-methodology');">described</span> above to acquire online articles about cases and social media engagement of articles; social media data is defined and sourced by Buzzsumo and Crowdtangle.
<ul class="inner">
<li><strong>Article count</strong> (quantitative). The number of web links about the allegation in the week after the date of attribution of the case.</li>
<li><strong>Facebook engagement</strong> (quantitative). Aggregate shares, comments, and reactions of a web link.</li>
<li><strong>Twitter engagement</strong> (quantitative). Aggregate shares of a web link.</li>
<li><strong>Reddit engagement</strong> (quantitative). Aggregate shares and interactions of a web link.</li>
<li><strong>Total engagement</strong> (quantitative). Aggregate Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit engagement.</li>
<li><strong>Polarization</strong> (quantitative). Measures the political leaning of case-related articles using polarization data from the AllSides Media Bias Ratings. AllSides is a media technology company which provides multiple perspectives on news outlets. Articles from outlets with AllSides data were divided into five political categories: left, lean left, center, lean right, and right.</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
<h5>How credible, biased, legitimate, and transparent is the allegation?</h5>
<ul>
<li>
<strong>Attribution Score.</strong> Methodology is described <span class="pseudolink" onclick="window.scrollsmooth('attribution-score', 'collapsible-methodology');">above</span>; the goal of this score is to critically assess the validity of the allegation from multiple perspectives.
<ul class="inner">
<li><strong>Credibility</strong></li>
<li><strong>Bias</strong></li>
<li><strong>Evidence</strong></li>
<li><strong>Transparency</strong></li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
Mrizzuto
Nested list to be set up in archieML