Concept
Community-Based Fact-Checking on Twitter's Birdwatch Platform - Ratings Analysis
- Birdwatch notes that report misleading tweets generally have a larger helpfulness ratio and more votes compared to non-misleading tweets with notes
- Users found Birdwatch notes more helpful if trustworthy sources were included and if the reported tweet had more votes saying it is not misleading
- Birdwatch notes were considered helpful if they are informative (31%), clear (24%), or provide trustworthy sources of reference (19%)
- Birdwatch notes considered unhelpful due to opinions/bias (25%), unreliable sources (20%), or missing key ideas (15%)
0
1
Updated 2021-06-10
Tags
CSCW (Computer-supported cooperative work)
Computing Sciences
Related
Community-Based Fact-Checking on Twitter's Birdwatch Platform - Birdwatch Note Analysis
Community-Based Fact-Checking on Twitter's Birdwatch Platform - Source Tweet Analysis
Community-Based Fact-Checking on Twitter's Birdwatch Platform - Ratings Analysis
Community-Based Fact-Checking on Twitter's Birdwatch Platform - Helpfulness Analysis