ArticlePNAS nexus2024
Collaboration, crowdsourcing, and misinformation.
Article in PNAS nexus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
One of humanity's greatest strengths lies in our ability to collaborate to achieve more than we can alone. Just as collaboration can be an important strength, humankind's inability to detect deception is one of our greatest weaknesses. Recently, our struggles with deception detection have been the subject of scholarly and public attention with the rise and spread of misinformation online, which threatens public health and civic society. Fortunately, prior work indicates that going beyond the individual can ameliorate weaknesses in deception detection by promoting active discussion or by harnessing the "wisdom of crowds." Can group collaboration similarly enhance our ability to recognize online misinformation? We conducted a lab experiment where participants assessed the veracity of credible news and misinformation on social media either as an actively collaborating group or while working alone. Our results suggest that collaborative groups were more accurate than individuals at detecting false posts, but not more accurate than a majority-based simulated group, suggesting that "wisdom of crowds" is the more efficient method for identifying misinformation. Our findings reorient research and policy from focusing on the individual to approaches that rely on crowdsourcing or potentially on collaboration in addressing the problem of misinformation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.