Can Community Notes Replace Professional Fact-Checkers?
Reviewed by Pith T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 kernel pith:SUGAJE2Nrecord.jsonopen to challenge →
read the original abstract
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.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
The Warrant Gap: Claim-Conditioned Re-scoring for Fact-Checking
Introduces claim-conditioned re-scoring (SIFT) and warranted supports proportion (WSP) metric, reporting accuracy recovery up to 27.6 points and WSP calibration at AUC 0.92 on FEVER, SciFact and other benchmarks.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.