Skip to content
Back to the collection

Birdwatch: Crowd Wisdom and Bridging Algorithms can Inform Understanding and Reduce the Spread of Misinformation

Stefan Wojcik, Sophie Hilgard, Nick Judd

Show all 8 authors

Delia Mocanu, Stephen Ragain, M. B. Fallin Hunzaker, Keith Coleman, Jay Baxter

2022 · arXiv

Read the paper
HN score
0
Mentions
6
Readers
4
Months
4
What’s in a score?

From the abstract

We present an approach for selecting objectively informative and subjectively helpful annotations to social media posts. We draw on data from on an online environment where contributors annotate misinformation and simultaneously rate the contributions of others. Our algorithm uses a matrix-factorization (MF) based approach to identify annotations that appeal broadly across heterogeneous user groups - sometimes referred to as "bridging-based ranking." We pair these data with a survey experiment in which individuals are randomly assigned to see annotations to posts. We find that annotations selected by the algorithm improve key indicators compared with overall average and crowd-generated baselines. Further, when deployed on Twitter, people who saw annotations selected through this bridging-based approach were significantly less likely to reshare social media posts than those who did not see the annotations.

Metadata: arXiv. Abstracts retain their original authors’ rights.

In the conversation

Original HN comments, with labels from simple text rules. A label describes the whole comment and may miss context or irony. Read the discussion to make up your own mind. About the labels

6 selected excerpts · 6 total mentions

nomel
Neutral mention · rule
A way to quantify this doesn't immediately come to my mind. Maybe reasonable metrics would be: 1. What % misleading/false posts are flagged 2. What % of those flagged are given meaningful context/corrections that are accurate. It seems there's circular logic of first determining truth with 1, and then maybe something to do with a "trust"/quality poll with 2. I suspect a good measurement would be very similar to the actual community notes implementation, since both of those are the goal of the system [1]. [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.15723
Gravityloss
Neutral mention · rule
Hmm sorry don't have anything. I recall hearing about some international research project that was used as input when creating the Twitter community notes but can't find it anymore. Interesting graphical tools exist nowadays to navigate the citation web and I guess one could try to backpropagate from this paper by Twitter employees, (Wojcik 2022):: https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.15723 Example navigation tool: https://www.connectedpapers.com/main/f983a4e27b457a502fba322...
jaybaxter
Neutral mention · rule
Hi! Birdwatch ML Engineer here-- these context notes are from Birdwatch. They are written and rated by users, and the notes are only added as context to Tweets if they are rated highly enough by multiple raters who have tended to disagree in the past. The core algorithm is open source as well as all of the data, and there is lots of public documentation about it too: https://twitter.github.io/birdwatch/ https://twitter.com/birdwatch/status/1585794012052611076?s=2... https://arxiv.org/pdf/2210.15723.pdf

Keep following the thread.

More in Algorithms

More from the same topics.

2000arXiv

Dancing links

Donald E. Knuth

The author presents two tricks to accelerate depth-first search algorithms for a class of combinatorial puzzle problems, such as tiling a tray by a fixed set of polyominoes.

10 mentions10 months
2HN score