Reading through it, I strongly disagree with FB's example for "Better citations in action". I don't see an improvement in the wording and IMO they would be making it worse by switching from an official first party source to a third party one.
While their tool might be useful to find semantic (mis)matches, a much more important part of verifying citations is to verify that the source has any business to make claims about the matter in the first place. https://xkcd.com/978/
QUOTE Better citations in action Usually, to develop models like this, the input might be just a sentence or two. We trained our models with complicated statements from Wikipedia, accompanied by full websites that may or may not support the claims. As a result, our models have achieved a leap in performance in terms of detecting the accuracy of citations. For example, our system found a better source for a citation in the Wikipedia article “2017 in Classical Music.” The claim reads:
“The Los Angeles Philharmonic announces the appointment of Simon Woods as its next president and chief executive officer, effective 22 January 2018.”
The current Wikipedia footnote for this statement links to a press release from the Dallas Symphony Association announcing the appointment of its new president and CEO, also effective January 22, 2018. Despite their similarities, our evidence-ranking model deduced that the press release was not relevant to the claim. Our AI indices suggested another possible source, a blog post on the website Violinist.com, which notes,
“On Thursday Los Angeles Philharmonic announced the appointment of Simon Woods as its new Chief Executive Director, effective Jan. 22, 2018.”
The evidence-ranking model then correctly concluded that this was more relevant than Wikipedia’s existing citation for the claim. /QUOTE