社群筆記能否取代專業事實查核員？

Can Community Notes Replace Professional Fact-Checkers?

February 19, 2025

作者: Nadav Borenstein, Greta Warren, Desmond Elliott, Isabelle Augenstein

cs.AI

摘要

為應對社交媒體上錯誤信息的蔓延，兩種常用策略是：(i) 專業機構的事實核查，以及 (ii) 平台用戶的社群審核。Twitter/X 以及近期 Meta 的政策變更，顯示出從與事實核查機構的合作轉向更加依賴群眾外包的社群筆記。然而，事實核查與有益的社群筆記之間的依賴程度和性質仍不明確。為解答這些問題，我們使用語言模型對大量 Twitter/X 社群筆記進行註釋，標記其主題、引用來源，以及是否反駁了與更廣泛錯誤信息敘述相關的聲明。我們的分析顯示，社群筆記引用事實核查來源的頻率比先前報告的高出五倍之多。對於與更廣泛敘述相關的貼文，其社群筆記引用事實核查來源的可能性是其他來源的兩倍，顯示事實核查在此尤為關鍵。總之，我們的研究結果表明，成功的社群審核在很大程度上依賴於專業的事實核查。

English

Two commonly-employed strategies to combat the rise of misinformation on social media are (i) fact-checking by professional organisations and (ii) community moderation by platform users. Policy changes by Twitter/X and, more recently, Meta, signal a shift away from partnerships with fact-checking organisations and towards an increased reliance on crowdsourced community notes. However, the extent and nature of dependencies between fact-checking and helpful community notes remain unclear. To address these questions, we use language models to annotate a large corpus of Twitter/X community notes with attributes such as topic, cited sources, and whether they refute claims tied to broader misinformation narratives. Our analysis reveals that community notes cite fact-checking sources up to five times more than previously reported. Fact-checking is especially crucial for notes on posts linked to broader narratives, which are twice as likely to reference fact-checking sources compared to other sources. In conclusion, our results show that successful community moderation heavily relies on professional fact-checking.