ArticleFrontiers in psychology2024
Readable and neutral? Reliability of crowdsourced misinformation debunking through linguistic and psycholinguistic cues.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- You sure about that? The effects of textual and image-based Skepticism on belief in dubious social-media claims.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2026Article
- ID-SMSA: Indonesian stock market dataset for sentiment analysis.Data in brief · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In the face of the proliferation of misinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic, crowdsourced debunking has surfaced as a counter-infodemic measure to complement efforts from professionals and regular individuals. In 2021, X (formerly Twitter) initiated its community-driven fact-checking program, named Community Notes (formerly Birdwatch). This program allows users to create contextual and corrective notes for misleading posts and rate the helpfulness of others' contributions. The effectiveness of the platform has been preliminarily verified, but mixed findings on reliability indicate the need for further research. Objective: The study aims to assess the reliability of Community Notes by comparing the readability and language neutrality of helpful and unhelpful notes. Methods: A total of 7,705 helpful notes and 2,091 unhelpful notes spanning from January 20, 2021, to May 30, 2023 were collected. Measures of reading ease, analytical thinking, affect and authenticity were derived by means of Wordless and Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC). Subsequently, the non-parametric Mann-Whitney Results: Both groups of notes are easy to read with no notable difference. Helpful notes show significantly greater logical thinking, authenticity, and emotional restraint than unhelpful ones. As such, the reliability of Community Notes is validated in terms of readability and neutrality. Nevertheless, the prevalence of prepared, negative and swear language in unhelpful notes indicates the manipulative and abusive attempts on the platform. The wide value range in the unhelpful group and overall limited consensus on note helpfulness also suggest the complex information ecology within the crowdsourced platform, highlighting the necessity of further guidance and management. Conclusion: Based on the statistical analysis of the linguistic and psycholinguistic characteristics, the study validated the reliability of Community Notes and identified room for improvement. Future endeavors could explore the psychological motivations underlying volunteering, gaming, or even manipulative behaviors, enhance the crowdsourced debunking system and integrate it with broader efforts in infodemic management.
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.