Using TwitterTrails.com to Investigate Rumor Propagation
Abstract
Social media have become part of modern news reporting, used by journalists to spread information and find sources, or as a news source by individuals. The quest for prominence and recognition on social media sites like Twitter can sometimes eclipse accuracy and lead to the spread of false information. As a way to study and react to this trend, we demo TWITTERTRAILS, an interactive, web-based tool (twittertrails.com) that allows users to investigate the origin and propagation characteristics of a rumor and its refutation, if any, on Twitter. Visualizations of burst activity, propagation timeline, retweet and co-retweeted networks help its users trace the spread of a story. Within minutes TWITTERTRAILS will collect relevant tweets and automatically answer several important questions regarding a rumor: its originator, burst characteristics, propagators and main actors according to the audience. In addition, it will compute and report the rumor's level of visibility and, as an example of the power of crowdsourcing, the audience's skepticism towards it which correlates with the rumor's credibility. We envision TWITTERTRAILS as valuable tool for individual use, and especially for amateur and professional journalists investigating recent and breaking stories.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
A rumour classification system that aggregates users' evolving collective judgements can help track a rumour's veracity status during collective sense-making.
“a rumour classification system that aggregates the evolving, collective judgements posted by users can help track the veracity status of a rumour as it is exposed to this process of collective sense-making”
From Detection and Resolution of Rumours in Social Media (2019) · cites this paper as Metaxas et al. 2015
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Detection and Resolution of Rumours in Social Media
Zubiaga, A., Aker, A., Bontcheva, K., Liakata, M., & Procter, R. (2019) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3161603 · Cited by 608 · see citing works
True or False: Studying the Work Practices of Professional Fact-Checkers
Micallef, N., Armacost, V., Memon, N., & Patil, S. (2022) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3512974 · Cited by 70 · see citing works
- Authors
- Metaxas, P. T., Finn, S., & Mustafaraj, E.
- Affiliations
- Wellesley College (US)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference Companion on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2015-02-28
- Pages
- 69-72
- OpenAlex
- W2129647236
- Cited by
- 54
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 5
- FWCI
- 27.49
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Wellesley Science Trustees Fund
- National Science Foundation (CNS-1117693)
- 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
- rumor propagation, Twitter, rumor refutation, misinformation, social media, web-based visualization tool, burst activity, retweet networks, crowdsourcing, journalism
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