arXiv:2502.14132cs.CLcs.AI2025-02ACL被引 26

社区笔记依赖专业核查,两者协同才能有效反谣言。

Can Community Notes Replace Professional Fact-Checkers?

论文配图:Can Community Notes Replace Professional Fact-Checkers?
图 1 · 摘自论文原文
  • 用语言模型分析推特社区笔记,提取主题与引用来源
  • 社区笔记引用核查源次数是此前报道的5倍,尤其在重大叙事中
  • 公民与专业核查深度绑定,不可相互替代

社交媒体上遏制虚假信息的两种常见策略是(i)专业机构事实核查,以及(ii)平台用户社区监督。推特/X和元公司近期政策转向,减少与专业核查机构合作,更依赖用户生成的社区笔记。然而,专业核查与社区笔记之间的依赖关系尚不明确。为此,我们使用语言模型对大规模推特社区笔记进行标注,涵盖主题、引用来源及是否反驳广泛传播的虚假叙事。分析显示,社区笔记引用专业核查来源的频率高达此前报告的5倍;涉及广泛叙事的帖子,其笔记引用核查源的概率是其他来源的2倍。结果表明,有效的社区监督高度依赖专业事实核查,凸显公民与专业核查的深度协同关系。

原文摘要 · Abstract (English)

Two commonly employed strategies to combat the rise of misinformation on social media are (i) fact-checking by professional organisations and (ii) community moderation by platform users. Policy changes by Twitter/X and, more recently, Meta, signal a shift away from partnerships with fact-checking organisations and towards an increased reliance on crowdsourced community notes. However, the extent and nature of dependencies between fact-checking and helpful community notes remain unclear. To address these questions, we use language models to annotate a large corpus of Twitter/X community notes with attributes such as topic, cited sources, and whether they refute claims tied to broader misinformation narratives. Our analysis reveals that community notes cite fact-checking sources up to five times more than previously reported. Fact-checking is especially crucial for notes on posts linked to broader narratives, which are twice as likely to reference fact-checking sources compared to other sources. Our results show that successful community moderation relies on professional fact-checking and highlight how citizen and professional fact-checking are deeply intertwined.

事实核查社区监督社交媒体虚假信息

Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。