The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Crowdsourced Rumour Identification During Emergencies
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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?
In the citing paper
“McCreadie et al. ( 2015) studied the feasibility of using a crowdsourcing platform to identify rumours and non-rumours in social media, finding that the annotators achieve high inter-annotator agreement.”
From Detection and Resolution of Rumours in Social Media: A Survey (2019) · cites this paper as McCreadie et al. 2015
In the citing paper
“However, their work was limited to crowdsourced annotation of rumours and non-rumours and they did not study the development of an automated rumour detection system.The dataset from this research is not publicly available.”
From Detection and Resolution of Rumours in Social Media: A Survey (2019) · cites this paper as McCreadie et al. 2015
In the citing paper
“They also categorised rumours into six different types: Unsubstantiated information, disputed information, misinformation/disinformation, reporting, linked dispute, and opinionated.”
From Detection and Resolution of Rumours in Social Media: A Survey (2019) · cites this paper as McCreadie et al. 2015
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 18
- 10.1037/h0058110 · DOI
- G. W. Allport and L. Postman . The psychology of rumor . 1947 . G. W. Allport and L. Postman. The psychology of rumor. 1947.
- 10.5555/1996889.1996910 · DOI
- 10.1145/1963405.1963500 · DOI · Paper page
- 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.
- 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.
- 10.1177/0392192107073433 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1145/1772938.1772952 · DOI
- 10.1145/1557019.1557077 · DOI
- 10.1007/s10791-012-9186-z · DOI
- 10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.01.010 · DOI
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
- 10.5555/1613715.1613718 · DOI
- 10.1145/1772690.1772777 · DOI
- 10.1145/3147.3165 · DOI
- 10.1145/345508.345577 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Detection and Resolution of Rumours in Social Media: A Survey
Zubiaga, A., Aker, A., Bontcheva, K., Liakata, M., & Procter, R. (2019) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3161603 · Cited by 862
“[McCreadie et al. 2015] studied the feasibility of using a crowdsourcing platform to identify rumours and non-rumours in social media, finding that the annotators achieve high inter-annotator agreement.”
BackgroundMartínez-Rojas, M., Pardo-Ferreira, M. D. C., & Rubio-Romero, J. C. (2018) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.07.008 · Cited by 213
The Web of False Information: Rumors, Fake News, Hoaxes, Clickbait, and Various Other Shenanigans
Zannettou, S., Sirivianos, M., Blackburn, J., & Kourtellis, N. (2019) · Journal of Data and Information Quality · doi:10.1145/3309699 · Cited by 86
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