社区笔记能否取代专业事实核查员？

摘要

为应对社交媒体上虚假信息的泛滥，两种常用策略是：(i) 由专业机构进行事实核查，以及(ii) 平台用户进行社区内容审核。Twitter/X及近期Meta的政策调整，显示出从与事实核查机构合作转向更多地依赖众包社区注释的趋势。然而，事实核查与有益社区注释之间的依赖程度及性质仍不明确。为解答这些问题，我们运用语言模型对一个大型Twitter/X社区注释语料库进行标注，涵盖主题、引用来源及是否反驳与更广泛虚假信息叙事相关的声明等属性。分析表明，社区注释引用事实核查来源的频率高达之前报告的五倍。对于与更广泛叙事相关的帖子，其注释引用事实核查来源的可能性是其他来源的两倍，凸显了事实核查在此类情境下的关键作用。总之，我们的研究结果表明，成功的社区内容审核在很大程度上依赖于专业的事实核查工作。

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. In conclusion, our results show that successful community moderation heavily relies on professional fact-checking.

社区笔记能否取代专业事实核查员？

Can Community Notes Replace Professional Fact-Checkers?

摘要

Summary

Support