Cited by 25Misinformation and Its ImpactsPublic Relations and Crisis CommunicationMobile Crowdsensing and Crowdsourcing

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Crowdsourced Rumour Identification During Emergencies

McCreadie, Richard, Macdonald, Craig, Ounis, Iadh·2015·Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on World Wide Web

Abstract

When a significant event occurs, many social media users leverage platforms such as Twitter to track that event. Moreover, emergency response agencies are increasingly looking to social media as a source of real-time information about such events. However, false information and rumours are often spread during such events, which can influence public opinion and limit the usefulness of social media for emergency management. In this paper, we present an initial study into rumour identification during emergencies using crowdsourcing. In particular, through an analysis of three tweet datasets relating to emergency events from 2014, we propose a taxonomy of tweets relating to rumours. We then perform a crowdsourced labeling experiment to determine whether crowd assessors can identify rumour-related tweets and where such labeling can fail. Our results show that overall, agreement over the tweet labels produced were high (0.7634 Fleiss Kappa), indicating that crowd-based rumour labeling is possible. However, not all tweets are of equal difficulty to assess. Indeed, we show that tweets containing disputed/controversial information tend to be some of the most difficult to identify.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/2740908.2742573

Cites

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 18

  1. 10.1037/h0058110 · DOI
  2. G. W. Allport and L. Postman . The psychology of rumor . 1947 . G. W. Allport and L. Postman. The psychology of rumor. 1947.
  3. 10.5555/1996889.1996910 · DOI
  4. 10.1145/1963405.1963500 · DOI · Paper page
  5. M.-C. De Marneffe , A. N. Rafferty , and C. D. Manning . Finding contradictions in text . In Proc of ACL:HLT , 2008 . M.-C. De Marneffe, A. N. Rafferty, and C. D. Manning. Finding contradictions in text. In Proc of ACL:HLT, 2008.
  6. L. Derczynski and K. Bontcheva . Pheme: Veracity in digital social networks . In Proc of ISA , 2014 . L. Derczynski and K. Bontcheva. Pheme: Veracity in digital social networks. In Proc of ISA, 2014.
  7. 10.1177/0392192107073433 · DOI · Paper page
  8. 10.1145/1772938.1772952 · DOI
  9. 10.1145/1557019.1557077 · DOI
  10. 10.1007/s10791-012-9186-z · DOI
  11. 10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.01.010 · DOI
  12. T. Newburn . Reading the riots . British Society of Criminology Newsletter , page 12 , 2011 . T. Newburn. Reading the riots. British Society of Criminology Newsletter, page 12, 2011.
  13. V. Qazvinian , E. Rosengren , D. R. Radev , and Q. Mei . Rumor has it: Identifying misinformation in microblogs . In Proc. of EMNLP , 2011 . V. Qazvinian, E. Rosengren, D. R. Radev, and Q. Mei. Rumor has it: Identifying misinformation in microblogs. In Proc. of EMNLP, 2011.
  14. J. Ratkiewicz , M. Conover , M. Meiss , B. Gonçalves , S. Patil , A. Flammini , and F. Menczer . Detecting and tracking the spread of astroturf memes in microblog streams. arXiv, 1011.3768 , 2010 . J. Ratkiewicz, M. Conover, M. Meiss, B. Gonçalves, S. Patil, A. Flammini, and F. Menczer. Detecting and tracking the spread of astroturf memes in microblog streams. arXiv, 1011.3768, 2010. · arXiv
  15. 10.5555/1613715.1613718 · DOI
  16. 10.1145/1772690.1772777 · DOI
  17. 10.1145/3147.3165 · DOI
  18. 10.1145/345508.345577 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
McCreadie, R., Macdonald, C., & Ounis, I.
Affiliations
University of Glasgow (GB)
Venue
Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on World Wide Web
Publisher
ACM
Published
2015-05-18
Pages
965-970
OpenAlex
W1054048471
Cited by
25
References
0
Citations by year
2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1
FWCI
5.36
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International World Wide Web Conference (WWW) (publishedVersion)
  • ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) (acceptedVersion)
Funders
European Commission SUPER Project (FP7-606853)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Public Relations and Crisis Communication
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Mobile Crowdsensing and Crowdsourcing
Keywords
crowdsourcing, emergency situations, Twitter, social media, emergency management, crowdsourced labeling, misinformation

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