CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 955Misinformation and Its ImpactsComplex Network Analysis TechniquesPublic Relations and Crisis Communication

Twitter under crisis: can we trust what we RT?

Mendoza, Marcelo, Poblete, Barbara, Castillo, Carlos·2010·Proceedings of the First Workshop on Social Media Analytics
DOI 10.1145/1964858.1964869
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

In this article we explore the behavior of Twitter users under an emergency situation. In particular, we analyze the activity related to the 2010 earthquake in Chile and characterize Twitter in the hours and days following this disaster. Furthermore, we perform a preliminary study of certain social phenomenons, such as the dissemination of false rumors and confirmed news. We analyze how this information propagated through the Twitter network, with the purpose of assessing the reliability of Twitter as an information source under extreme circumstances. Our analysis shows that the propagation of tweets that correspond to rumors differs from tweets that spread news because rumors tend to be questioned more than news by the Twitter community. This result shows that it is posible to detect rumors by using aggregate analysis on tweets.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/1964858.1964869

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • Mendoza et al. (2010) found strong correlations between rumour support and veracity: a majority of users support true rumours, while more users deny false rumours.

    “In an earlier study, Mendoza et al. (2010) had found strong correlations between rumour support and veracity, showing that a majority of users support true rumours, while a higher number of users denies false rumours.”

    From Detection and Resolution of Rumours in Social Media (2019) · cites this paper as Mendoza et al. 2010

  • Mendoza et al. (2010) found that over 95% of tweets associated with true rumours were affirms, 4% were questions, and 0.4% were denies.

    “They found that over 95% of tweets associated with true rumours were "affirms," whereas only 4% were "questions," and only 0.4% were "denies."”

    From Detection and Resolution of Rumours in Social Media (2019) · cites this paper as Mendoza et al. (2010)

  • Mendoza et al. (2010) suggested that true rumours are largely supported by other Twitter users.

    “This suggested that true rumours are largely supported by other Twitter users.”

    From Detection and Resolution of Rumours in Social Media (2019) · cites this paper as Mendoza et al. (2010)

  • Mendoza et al. (2010) found that 38% of tweets associated with false rumours were denies and 17% were questions.

    “On the other hand, 38% of the tweets associated with false rumours were identified as "denies" and 17% as "questions."”

    From Detection and Resolution of Rumours in Social Media (2019) · cites this paper as Mendoza et al. (2010)

  • Mendoza et al. (2010) suggested that there is a difference in the stances users express toward true and false rumours and that user stances can indicate rumour veracity.

    “both of these figures suggest that there is indeed a difference in the stances expressed by users toward true and false rumours and that user stances can be indicative of rumour veracity.”

    From Detection and Resolution of Rumours in Social Media (2019) · cites this paper as Mendoza et al. (2010)

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mendoza, M., Poblete, B., & Castillo, C.
Affiliations
  • Yahoo! Research, Santiago, Chile
  • Yahoo! Research, Barcelona, Spain
ORCID
Venue
Proceedings of the First Workshop on Social Media Analytics
Publisher
ACM
Published
2010-07-25
Pages
71-79
DOI
10.1145/1964858.1964869
OpenAlex
W2050619059
Cited by
955
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 42 · 2021: 71 · 2020: 77 · 2019: 81 · 2018: 95 · 2017: 90 · 2016: 105 · 2015: 87 · 2014: 77 · 2013: 68 · 2012: 48
FWCI
126.22
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.acm.org/publications/policies/copyright_policy#Background (vor)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Complex Network Analysis Techniques
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Public Relations and Crisis Communication
Keywords
Twitter, 2010 Maule earthquake, emergency situations, rumor propagation, misinformation, news dissemination, information reliability, rumor detection

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