Edge Rewrite
Jump to content

Talk:Content Authenticity Initiative

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 5 days ago by BixiEnjoyer in topic Split this article into two articles

Split this article into two articles

[edit]

The CAI and C2PA are two distinct things, and this article feels like it tries to explain both. There is no C2PA article on wikipedia and there should be one, which could be made with information from this article as well as other sources. BixiEnjoyer (talk) 02:04, 22 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Renewed split proposal — September 2026
I am a contributing member of the Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity (C2PA), and therefore have a conflict of interest regarding this subject. I am disclosing that relationship and have prepared a proposed destination article through Articles for Creation rather than creating a mainspace article directly.
The existing proposal correctly identifies a continuing scope problem: the article titled Content Authenticity Initiative includes substantial material about C2PA, a separate technical-standards project. CAI is an Adobe-led initiative focused on adoption and community activity, while C2PA develops the technical specifications used by systems commonly described as Content Credentials.
I have created and submitted Draft:Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity for independent review. The draft covers C2PA's formation, specifications, media formats, governance, conformance, adoption, and independently sourced reception and criticism.
I propose that, if independent editors determine that the draft meets Wikipedia's notability and sourcing requirements, C2PA-specific material be split into the new article. This article would retain its history as the Content Authenticity Initiative, its Adobe-led adoption and community role, and a concise, reliably sourced section explaining its relationship with C2PA.
I welcome independent editors' assessment of the draft and of whether a split is appropriate. I will not treat this proposal as a request to remove well-sourced critical material; material transferred to a C2PA article should retain appropriate attribution and balanced coverage. David Condrey log talk 21:58, 17 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hi David I will try to take a look at your draft and see if I can include it in the already existing Content Credentials article.
I feel C2PA and Content Credentials are close enough concepts that they should be the same article. My understanding is that C2PA (the technical spec) and Content Credentials (the branded name for C2PA manifests in media for everyday folks) are basically the same thing looked from two different perspective. Thoughts? ~2026-50337-78 (talk) 20:39, 18 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
(This comment was made by me but I forgot to connect) BixiEnjoyer (talk) 20:40, 18 September 2026 (UTC)Reply