CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 64Misinformation and Its ImpactsComplex Network Analysis TechniquesPublic Relations and Crisis Communication

Digital Wildfires: Propagation, Verification, Regulation, and Responsible Innovation

Webb, Helena, Burnap, Pete, Procter, Rob, Rana, Omer, Stahl, Bernd Carsten, Williams, Matthew, Housley, William, Edwards, Adam +1 more·2016·ACM Transactions on Information Systems
DOI 10.1145/2893478
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Social media platforms provide an increasingly popular means for individuals to share content online. Whilst this produces undoubted societal benefits, the ability for content to be spontaneously posted and reposted creates an ideal environment for rumour and false/malicious information to spread rapidly. When this occurs it can cause significant harm and can be characterised as a “digital wildfire.” In this article, we demonstrate that the propagation and regulation of digital wildfires form important topics for research and conduct an overview of existing work in this area. We outline the relevance of a range of work from the computational and social sciences, including a series of insights into the propagation of rumour and false/malicious information. We argue that significant research gaps remain—for instance, there is an absence of systematic studies on the effects of digital wildfires and there is a need to combine empirical research with a consideration of how the responsible governance of social media can be determined. We propose an agenda for research that establishes a methodology to explore in full the propagation and regulation of unverified content on social media. This agenda promotes high-quality interdisciplinary research that will also inform policy debates.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/2893478

Cites

79 of 79 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Social media's lack of moderation contributes to the emergence and spread of rumours and misinformation.

    “its unmoderated nature often leads to the emergence and spread of rumours”

    From Detection and Resolution of Rumours in Social Media (2019) · cites this paper as Webb et al. 2016

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 82 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. BURNAP, P., RANA, O., WILLIAMS, M., HOUSLEY, W., EDWARDS, A., MORGAN, J, SLOAN, L. and CONEJERO, J. COSMOS: Towards an Integrated and Scalable Service for Analyzing Social Media on Demand, International Journal of Parallel, Emergent and Distributed Systems (IJPEDS). 30,2 (2014a).
  2. DAWKINS, R. Memes: the new replicators, In The Selfish Gene (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press, Oxford. (1989).
  3. GUPTA, A., LAMBA, H., KUMARAGURU, P. and JOSHI, A. Faking Sandy: Characterising and Identifying fake images on Twitter during Hurricane Sandy, Second International Workshop on Privacy and Security on Social Media (PSOSM) May 2013, (2013) Retrieved 17 August 2015 from http://ebiquity.umbc.edu/paper/html/id/623/Faking-Sandy-Characterizing-andIdentifying-Fake-Images-on-Twitter-during-Hurricane-Sandy .
  4. HER MAJESTY'S INSPECTORATE OF CONSTABULARY. The Rules of Engagement: A Review of the August 2011 Disorders. HMIC, London, (2011a).
  5. HER MAJESTY'S INSPECTORATE OF CONSTABULARY. Policing Public Order: An overview and review of progress against the recommendations of Adapting to Protest and Nurturing the British Model of Policing. HMIC, London, (2011b).
  6. JOHNSON, D.G. Computer Ethics (1st edition). Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, (1985).
  7. LUPTON, D. Digital Sociology. Routledge, London (2015).
  8. MACSKASSY, S. and MICHELSON, M. Why do people retweet? antihomophily wins the day, In: International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM). (2011).
  9. MORRIS, S. Contagion, Review of Economic Studies. 67,1 (2000), 57-78.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Webb, H., Burnap, P., Procter, R., Rana, O., Stahl, B. C., Williams, M., Housley, W., Edwards, A., & Jirotka, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • Cardiff University (GB)
  • University of Warwick (GB)
  • De Montfort University (GB)
ORCID
Venue
ACM Transactions on Information Systems
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)
Published
2016-04-20
Volume
34
Issue
3
Pages
1-23
ISSN
  • 1046-8188 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-2868
DOI
10.1145/2893478
OpenAlex
W2338533289
Cited by
64
References
82
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 7
FWCI
22.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.acm.org/publications/policies/copyright_policy#Background (vor)
Locations
  • ACM Transactions on Information Systems (publishedVersion)
  • Warwick Research Archive Portal (University of Warwick) (acceptedVersion)
  • DMU Open Research Archive (De Montfort University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Economic and Social Research Council (ES/L013398/1)
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, misinformation, social media, content regulation, social media governance, information dissemination

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