Paper detail

Can online attention signals help fact-checkers fact-check?

Recent research suggests that not all fact-checking efforts are equal: when and what is fact-checked plays a pivotal role in effectively correcting misconceptions. In that context, signals capturing how much attention specific topics receive on the Internet have the potential to study (and possibly support) fact-checking efforts. This paper proposes a framework to study fact-checking with online attention signals. The framework consists of: 1) extracting claims from fact-checking efforts; 2) linking such claims with knowledge graph entities; and 3) estimating the online attention these entities receive. We use this framework to conduct a preliminary study of a dataset of 879 COVID-19-related fact-checks done in 2020 by 81 international organizations. Our findings suggest that there is often a disconnect between online attention and fact-checking efforts. For example, in around 40% of countries that fact-checked ten or more claims, half or more than half of the ten most popular claims were not fact-checked. Our analysis also shows that claims are first fact-checked after receiving, on average, 35% of the total online attention they would eventually receive in 2020. Yet, there is a considerable variation among claims: some were fact-checked before receiving a surge of misinformation-induced online attention; others are fact-checked much later. Overall, our work suggests that the incorporation of online attention signals may help organizations assess their fact-checking efforts and choose what and when to fact-check claims or stories. Also, in the context of international collaboration, where claims are fact-checked multiple times across different countries, online attention could help organizations keep track of which claims are "migrating" between countries.

preprint2022arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.