对比专业与社区撰写辟谣文的说服策略，发现两者说服技巧数量相当。
Truth with a Twist: The Rhetoric of Persuasion in Professional vs. Community-Authored Fact-Checks
- 基于多个数据集对比社区与专业辟谣的说服手法
- 社区辟谣平均说服技巧数不高于专业辟谣
- 群众能识别并抵制不当修辞，但部分说服语言更受欢迎
本研究首次对由大众与专业人士撰写的辟谣内容中的说服技巧进行大规模比较。利用来自Community Notes（CNs）、EUvsDisinfo及Database of Known Fakes（DBKF）的广泛数据集，我们量化了不同辟谣生态中说服技巧的普遍性与类型。与先前假设相反，我们未发现社区撰写的辟谣（CNs）比专业辟谣包含更多说服技巧。此外，我们识别出社区与专业辟谣在修辞策略上的系统性差异，反映出机构规范与话题覆盖的不同。最后，我们考察了大众对CNs中说服语言的评价，结果显示尽管含有更多说服元素的笔记获得略高的总体帮助度评分，但群体评分者仍能有效惩罚某些问题性修辞手段。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
This study presents the first large-scale comparison of persuasion techniques present in crowd- versus professionally-written debunks. Using extensive datasets from Community Notes (CNs), EUvsDisinfo, and the Database of Known Fakes (DBKF), we quantify the prevalence and types of persuasion techniques across these fact-checking ecosystems. Contrary to prior hypothesis that community-produced debunks rely more heavily on subjective or persuasive wording, we find no evidence that CNs contain a higher average number of persuasion techniques than professional fact-checks. We additionally identify systematic rhetorical differences between CNs and professional debunking efforts, reflecting differences in institutional norms and topical coverage. Finally, we examine how the crowd evaluates persuasive language in CNs and show that, although notes with more persuasive elements receive slightly higher overall helpfulness ratings, crowd raters are effective at penalising the use of particular problematic rhetorical means
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。