Cited by 125Misinformation and Its ImpactsPublic Relations and Crisis CommunicationComplex Network Analysis Techniques

Tweet, but verify: epistemic study of information verification on Twitter

Open access
Zubiaga, Arkaitz, Ji, Heng·2014·Social Network Analysis and Mining

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s13278-014-0163-y

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Zubiaga and Ji (2014) found that crowd workers' verification work tends to favour selecting true labels for inaccurate information.

    “This is what Zubiaga and Ji (2014) found in their study, suggesting that verification work performed by crowd workers tends to favour selection of true labels for inaccurate information.”

    From Detection and Resolution of Rumours in Social Media (2019) · cites this paper as Zubiaga and Ji 2014

  • Credibility perceptions have been annotated in prior work to determine how credible claims appear to people; this could help identify misleading rumours but has not yet been applied to rumours.

    “Annotation of credibility perceptions has also been done in previous work, determining how credible claims appear to people (Mitra and Gilbert 2015;Zubiaga and Ji 2014); this could be useful in the context of rumours to identify those that are likely to be misleading for people; however, it has not yet been applied in the context of rumours.”

    From Detection and Resolution of Rumours in Social Media (2019) · cites this paper as Zubiaga and Ji 2014

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 42 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Fallis, D.: On verifying the accuracy of information: Philosophical perspectives. Library trends 52(3), 463-487 (2004)
  2. Goldman, A.I.: Epistemology and Congnition. Harvard University Press (1986)

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zubiaga, A., & Ji, H.
Affiliations
  • Queens College, CUNY (US)
  • Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (US)
Corresponding author
Zubiaga, Arkaitz
Venue
Social Network Analysis and Mining
Published
2014-03-25
Volume
4
Issue
1
ISSN
  • 1869-5450 (ISSN-L)
  • 1869-5469
OpenAlex
W2110785023
Cited by
125
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1
FWCI
29.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Social Network Analysis and Mining (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • Warwick Research Archive Portal (University of Warwick) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (CAREER, W911NF-09-2-0053, 0953149)
  • Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
  • Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (FA8750-13-2-0041, FA8750, W911NF-09-2-0053)
  • Army Research Laboratory (Cooperative Agreement No. W911NF-09-2-0053, W911NF, No. W911NF-09-2-0053, W911NF-09-2-0053)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Public Relations and Crisis Communication
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Complex Network Analysis Techniques
Keywords
fact-checking, Twitter, perceived credibility, hoaxes, misinformation, Hurricane Sandy, epistemology, trust in information, corroboration, author verification, natural disasters

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review