Cited by 13Misinformation and Its ImpactsComplex Network Analysis TechniquesSpam and Phishing Detection

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Tracking and Characterizing the Competition of Fact Checking and Misinformation: Case Studies

Open access

Abstract

Massive amounts of misinformation have been spreading over social media during the 2016 U.S. election season, causing wide public concern about our information ecosystem. How does fact checking compete with misinformation for user attentions? How do misinformation and fact checking differ in their spreading patterns? And what strategies are used by social bots to promote the spread of misinformation? In this paper, we address these research questions by analyzing datasets collected by Hoaxy. We answer the first question by conducting: 1) a survival analysis shows that about 70% of claims will be fact-checked in one week and about 800 tweets with claim links are posted during this period, on average and 2) a cross-correlation analysis shows that the sharing of fact-checking articles typically lags that of misinformation by about one day. Regarding the second question, we answer it from three points of view: 1) we find that false claims can become more popular than the corresponding debunking; 2) when looking at the distribution of types of tweets, we find that fact checking tends to spread in a conversational way; and 3) bot behavior analysis shows that the most active accounts sharing misinformation behave more like social bots. To better understand how social bots spread misinformation, we conduct case studies to answer the third question. By presenting strategies such as the production of a large number of original tweets, the alternating and hijacking of hashtags, and the injection of content into conversations, we demonstrate how social bots take advantages of the recommendation features of Twitter to amplify the spread of misinformation.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/access.2018.2881037

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 5 references

Research works printed but not linked: 36

  1. 10.7717/peerj-cs.87 · DOI
  2. conover, 2011, Political polarization on Twitter, Proc 5th Int AAAI Conf on Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM 11), 89
  3. 10.1145/2872518.2889302 · DOI · Paper page
  4. 10.1002/sim.5408 · DOI · Paper page
  5. 10.1073/pnas.1116502109 · DOI
  6. 10.1126/science.1185231 · DOI · Paper page
  7. 10.1145/1772690.1772842 · DOI
  8. 10.1145/1772690.1772751 · DOI · Paper page
  9. 10.1145/1963192.1963301 · DOI
  10. 10.1038/srep09452 · DOI
  11. 10.1109/CC.2015.7366237 · DOI
  12. ratkiewicz, 2011, Detecting and tracking political abuse in social media, Proc AAAI Conf on Weblogs and Social Media, 297
  13. 10.1145/2983323.2983697 · DOI
  14. wu, 2016, Mining misinformation in social media, Big Data of Complex Networks, 125
  15. declerck, 2015, Ontological modelling of rumors, Proc 12th EUROLAN Summer School RUMOUR Workshop, 3
  16. 10.1140/epjds/s13688-017-0111-y · DOI
  17. 10.1145/2818717 · DOI · Paper page
  18. 10.1371/journal.pone.0196087 · DOI
  19. howell, 2013, Digital wildfires in a hyperconnected world, Global Risks
  20. 10.1145/2872518.2890098 · DOI
  21. 10.1257/jep.31.2.211 · DOI · Paper page
  22. 10.1080/21670811.2017.1360143 · DOI
  23. 10.1038/s41467-018-06930-7 · DOI · Paper page
  24. gu, 2017, [Online]
  25. 10.1007/978-3-319-26148-5_32 · DOI
  26. 10.1080/13183222.2018.1418964 · DOI
  27. barthel, 2017, Americans’ Attitudes About the News Media Deeply Divided Along Partisan Lines
  28. 10.1126/science.aao2998 · DOI · Paper page
  29. 10.1126/science.356.6336.368 · DOI
  30. 10.1109/ICDM.2017.105 · DOI
  31. 10.1371/journal.pone.0128193 · DOI · Paper page
  32. 10.1145/2806416.2806652 · DOI
  33. 10.1109/MC.2016.183 · DOI
  34. mitra, 2015, CREDBANK: A large-scale social media corpus with associated credibility annotations, Proc AAAI Conf on Weblogs and Social Media, 258
  35. carton, 2015, Audience analysis for competing memes in social media, Proc AAAI Conf on Weblogs and Social Media, 41
  36. 10.1145/2685553.2702691 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 13

Metadata

Authors
Shao, C., Hui, P.-M., Cui, P., Jiang, X., & Peng, Y.
Affiliations
  • National University of Defense Technology (CN)
  • Indiana University Bloomington (US)
  • Xiangtan University (CN)
Venue
IEEE Access
Published
2018
Volume
6
Pages
75327-75341
ISSN
2169-3536 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2901377436
Cited by
13
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3
FWCI
3.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE Access (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • China Scholarship Council
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (61272010)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Complex Network Analysis Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Spam and Phishing Detection
Keywords
fact-checking, misinformation, social bots, Twitter, misinformation amplification, survival analysis, cross correlation function, debunking, hashtag hijacking, recommendation algorithms

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