pith. sign in

arxiv: 2509.15434 · v3 · submitted 2025-09-18 · 💻 cs.HC · cs.CY· cs.SI

Beyond Community Notes: A Framework for Understanding and Building Crowdsourced Context Systems for Social Media

Travis Lloyd , Tung Nguyen , Karen Levy , Mor Naaman This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 15:21 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC cs.CYcs.SI
keywords crowdsourced context systemscommunity notessocial mediafact-checkingdesign frameworkhuman-computer interactioninformation ecosystemnormative implications
0
0 comments X

The pith

A framework defines crowdsourced context systems on social media through a theoretical model and a six-aspect design space.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper reviews 56 studies on systems that add crowdsourced context to social media posts, such as those similar to Community Notes, along with real-world platform examples. From this it constructs a theoretical model that defines what these systems are and how they function. It then lays out a design space organized around six aspects: participation, inputs, curation, presentation, platform treatment, and transparency. The authors also examine the moral and practical consequences that follow from choices within each aspect. A sympathetic reader would care because major platforms are adopting these systems as substitutes for professional fact-checking and the design decisions could reshape how people encounter and evaluate information online.

Core claim

The authors propose that Crowdsourced Context Systems can be conceptualized through a theoretical model and analyzed via a design space with six aspects—participation, inputs, curation, presentation, platform treatment, and transparency—while considering the normative implications of design choices, based on a review of 56 papers and real-world examples.

What carries the argument

The two-part framework consisting of a theoretical model that defines Crowdsourced Context Systems and a design space with six aspects that organizes implementation choices and their ethical consequences.

If this is right

  • Researchers gain a shared vocabulary to compare and evaluate different crowdsourced context implementations across platforms.
  • Platform designers can systematically address each of the six aspects when creating or updating these systems.
  • The framework makes visible how choices in participation or transparency affect user trust and information quality.
  • Normative implications provide a basis for discussing fairness, bias, and power in crowdsourced moderation.
  • Future studies can test or extend the model against new platform features or emerging systems.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Applying the framework to a newly launched system not covered in the original 56 papers could reveal whether the six aspects remain sufficient over time.
  • Platforms might use the design space to audit their own systems for unintended effects on participation or curation.
  • The emphasis on normative implications could connect to broader questions about crowdsourcing in other domains such as content moderation or knowledge bases.
  • If adopted, the framework might encourage more consistent transparency practices across competing social media platforms.

Load-bearing premise

That reviewing 56 existing studies and current implementations is enough to create a comprehensive and generalizable framework that covers the essential features of all possible crowdsourced context systems.

What would settle it

Discovery of a crowdsourced context system in active use whose core features cannot be described or categorized by any of the six aspects in the design space.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.15434 by Karen Levy, Mor Naaman, Travis Lloyd, Tung Nguyen.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Screenshots of a Community Note displayed on Instagram (left) and X (right). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Model of a Crowdsourced Context System. Users create posts, context contributors create notes about those posts, and ratings contributors create ratings for those notes. Based on these ratings, the system selects “helpful” notes, which are displayed alongside the post for users to see. to identify “helpful” notes, which are then published and displayed alongside the associated post everywhere that it appea… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: PRISMA flow diagram [65] for our systematic literature review. in the HCI community but are sometimes excluded from literature reviews, such as pre-prints and non-full-length conference submissions. We thus settled on the following inclusion and exclusion criteria: Inclusion criteria: the study is about Birdwatch or Community Notes or a similar system, either “in the wild” or in a controlled setting. Exclu… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Social media platforms are increasingly adopting features that display crowdsourced context alongside posts, a technique pioneered by X's Community Notes. These systems -- which we term Crowdsourced Context Systems (CCS) -- have the potential to reshape the information ecosystem as major platforms embrace them as alternatives to professional fact-checking. To understand the features and implications of these systems, we conduct a systematic literature review of existing CCS research (n=56) and analyze real-world CCS implementations. Based on our analysis, we develop a framework with two components. First, we present a theoretical model to conceptualize and define CCS. Second, we identify a design space encompassing six aspects: participation, inputs, curation, presentation, platform treatment, and transparency. We also surface normative implications of different CCS design and implementation choices. Our work integrates theoretical, design, and ethical perspectives to establish a foundation for future human-centered research on Crowdsourced Context Systems.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript conducts a systematic literature review of 56 papers on crowdsourced context systems (CCS) such as X's Community Notes, combined with analysis of real-world implementations. From this, the authors derive a framework with two parts: a theoretical model to conceptualize and define CCS, and a design space consisting of six aspects (participation, inputs, curation, presentation, platform treatment, and transparency). The work also identifies normative implications of design choices and positions the framework as a foundation for future HCI research on these systems.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper offers a timely synthesis that could structure future research on emerging CCS deployments across platforms. The systematic review plus real-world analysis provides a concrete basis for the six-aspect design space, and the explicit discussion of normative implications is a strength that integrates ethical considerations with design. These elements could help researchers and practitioners avoid ad-hoc implementations as more platforms adopt such features.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3] §3 (Systematic Literature Review): The methods description provides the final n=56 but does not include a PRISMA flow diagram, explicit search strings, databases searched, or detailed inclusion/exclusion criteria. This omission directly affects the ability to evaluate selection bias and whether the corpus is representative of CCS variants (including non-English work or post-2023 deployments), which is load-bearing for the claim that the six-aspect design space comprehensively captures essential features of all such systems.
  2. [§4.2] §4.2 (Derivation of Design Space): The six aspects are presented as emerging from the review and real-world analysis, yet the manuscript does not provide a traceable mapping (e.g., via a table linking specific papers or implementations to each aspect). Without this, it is unclear whether the framework systematically covers all variants or omits important dimensions, undermining the generalizability asserted in the abstract and conclusion.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states 'analysis of real-world CCS implementations' but does not specify how many implementations were examined or the selection criteria; adding this detail would improve clarity.
  2. [Figure 2] Figure 2 (or equivalent diagram of the theoretical model) would benefit from explicit arrows or labels showing how the six aspects relate back to the model components.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed feedback. The comments highlight important opportunities to improve the transparency and traceability of our methods and framework derivation. We address each major comment below and will incorporate the suggested changes in the revised manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3] §3 (Systematic Literature Review): The methods description provides the final n=56 but does not include a PRISMA flow diagram, explicit search strings, databases searched, or detailed inclusion/exclusion criteria. This omission directly affects the ability to evaluate selection bias and whether the corpus is representative of CCS variants (including non-English work or post-2023 deployments), which is load-bearing for the claim that the six-aspect design space comprehensively captures essential features of all such systems.

    Authors: We agree that the methods section requires greater detail to support evaluation of selection bias and representativeness. In the revision we will add a PRISMA flow diagram, list all databases searched (ACM Digital Library, IEEE Xplore, Scopus, Google Scholar, and arXiv), provide the complete search strings, and expand the inclusion/exclusion criteria with explicit rationale. We will also add a limitations paragraph noting the English-language focus and the literature cutoff date, thereby clarifying the scope without overstating generalizability. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§4.2] §4.2 (Derivation of Design Space): The six aspects are presented as emerging from the review and real-world analysis, yet the manuscript does not provide a traceable mapping (e.g., via a table linking specific papers or implementations to each aspect). Without this, it is unclear whether the framework systematically covers all variants or omits important dimensions, undermining the generalizability asserted in the abstract and conclusion.

    Authors: We accept this observation. Although the six aspects were synthesized from the reviewed corpus and real-world cases, the manuscript does not supply an explicit mapping. We will add a supplementary table (or appendix) that links representative papers and implementations to each aspect, documenting the evidence used in the derivation. This addition will make the process traceable and allow readers to assess coverage directly. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: framework is a synthesis from external literature and implementations

full rationale

The paper's central contribution is a theoretical model and six-aspect design space obtained via systematic review of 56 external papers plus analysis of real-world CCS implementations. No equations, fitted parameters, self-citations, or uniqueness theorems are invoked to derive the framework; the derivation chain consists of literature synthesis and inductive categorization rather than reduction to the authors' own prior results or inputs by construction. This matches the default expectation for non-circular review papers that remain self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The framework rests on the assumption that existing CCS research can be systematically aggregated into a general model and that the six listed aspects are the primary design dimensions; no quantitative free parameters or new physical entities are introduced.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption A systematic review of 56 papers plus real-world analysis yields a representative and complete picture of CCS features and implications.
    Invoked when the authors state they develop the framework based on the literature review and implementation analysis.
invented entities (1)
  • Crowdsourced Context Systems (CCS) no independent evidence
    purpose: To provide an umbrella term and conceptual category for systems that display crowdsourced context alongside social media posts.
    The authors introduce CCS as a unifying label for Community Notes-style features; no independent empirical test of the category is provided in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5697 in / 1411 out tokens · 44877 ms · 2026-05-18T15:21:17.585167+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

92 extracted references · 92 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    [n. d.]. How fact-checking works | Transparency Center. https://transparency.meta.com/features/how-fact-checking-works

    work page

  2. [2]

    Arechar, Gordon Pennycook, and David G

    Jennifer Allen, Antonio A. Arechar, Gordon Pennycook, and David G. Rand. 2021. Scaling up fact-checking using the wisdom of crowds.Science Advances7, 36 (Sept. 2021), eabf4393. doi:10.1126/sciadv.abf4393 Publisher: American Association for the Advancement of Science

    work page doi:10.1126/sciadv.abf4393 2021

  3. [3]

    Jennifer Allen, Cameron Martel, and David G Rand. 2022. Birds of a feather don’t fact-check each other: Partisanship and the evaluation of news in Twitter’s Birdwatch crowdsourced fact-checking program. InProceedings of the 2022 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (Chi ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New Orleans, LA, USA and Ne...

    work page doi:10.1145/3491102.3502040 2022

  4. [4]

    Bernstein, Greg Little, Robert C

    Michael S. Bernstein, Greg Little, Robert C. Miller, Björn Hartmann, Mark S. Ackerman, David R. Karger, David Crowell, and Katrina Panovich. 2015. Soylent: a word processor with a crowd inside.Commun. ACM58, 8 (July 2015), 85–94. doi:10.1145/2791285

    work page doi:10.1145/2791285 2015

  5. [5]

    Hugh Beyer and Karen Holtzblatt. 1999. Contextual design.Interactions6, 1 (Jan. 1999), 32–42. doi:10.1145/291224.291229

    work page doi:10.1145/291224.291229 1999

  6. [6]

    Zhang, Connie Moon Sehat, and Tanushree Mitra

    Md Momen Bhuiyan, Amy X. Zhang, Connie Moon Sehat, and Tanushree Mitra. 2020. Investigating Differences in Crowdsourced News Credibility Assessment: Raters, Tasks, and Expert Criteria.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.4, CSCW2 (Oct. 2020), 93:1–93:26. doi:10.1145/3415164 20 Lloyd et al

    work page doi:10.1145/3415164 2020

  7. [7]

    Nadav Borenstein, Greta Warren, Desmond Elliott, and Isabelle Augenstein. 2025. Can community notes replace professional fact-checkers?. In Proceedings of the 63rd annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics (volume 2: Short papers), Wanxiang Che, Joyce Nabende, Ekaterina Shutova, and Mohammad Taher Pilehvar (Eds.). Association for Com...

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2025.acl- 2025

  8. [8]

    Paul Bouchaud and Pedro Ramaciotti. 2025. Algorithmic resolution of crowd-sourced moderation on X in polarized settings across countries. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2506.15168 arXiv:2506.15168 [cs]

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.15168 2025

  9. [9]

    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology.Qualitative Research in Psychology3, 2 (Jan. 2006), 77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Publisher: Routledge _eprint: https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

    work page doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa 2006

  10. [10]

    Card, Jock D

    Stuart K. Card, Jock D. Mackinlay, and George G. Robertson. 1990. The design space of input devices. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’90). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 117–124. doi:10.1145/97243.97263

    work page doi:10.1145/97243.97263 1990

  11. [11]

    Albert Cherns. 1976. The Principles of Sociotechnical Design.Human Relations29, 8 (Aug. 1976), 783–792. doi:10.1177/001872677602900806 Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd

    work page doi:10.1177/001872677602900806 1976

  12. [12]

    Salim Chouaki, Abhijnan Chakraborty, Oana Goga, and Savvas Zannettou. 2024. What News Do People Get on Social Media? Analyzing Exposure and Consumption of News through Data Donations. InProceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2024 (WWW ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2371–2382. doi:10.1145/3589334.3645399

    work page doi:10.1145/3589334.3645399 2024

  13. [13]

    Yuwei Chuai, Moritz Pilarski, Thomas Renault, David Restrepo-Amariles, Aurore Troussel-Clément, Gabriele Lenzini, and Nicolas Pröllochs. 2024. Community-based fact-checking reduces the spread of misleading posts on social media. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2409.08781 arXiv:2409.08781 [cs]

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2409.08781 2024

  14. [14]

    Yuwei Chuai, Haoye Tian, Nicolas Pröllochs, and Gabriele Lenzini. 2024. Did the roll-out of community notes reduce engagement with misinformation on X/twitter?Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.8, CSCW2 (Nov. 2024). doi:10.1145/3686967 Number of pages: 52 Place: New York, NY, USA Publisher: Association for Computing Machinery tex.articleno: 428 tex.issue_dat...

    work page doi:10.1145/3686967 2024

  15. [15]

    Masaki Chujyo, Dongwoo Lim, Mikihito Tanaka, and Fujio Toriumi. 2025. Community notes for preventing the spread of misinformation after the noto peninsula earthquake in japan. InCompanion proceedings of the ACM on web conference 2025 (Www ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, Sydney NSW, Australia and New York, NY, USA, 938–941. doi:10.1145/3701716.3...

    work page doi:10.1145/3701716.3715593 2025

  16. [16]

    Busam, Samuel Forstner, John Glance, Guy Green, Anna Kawata, Akhila Kovvuri, Jonathan Martin, Evan Morgan, Morgan Sandhu, Rachel Sang, Rachel Scholz-Bright, Austin T

    Katherine Clayton, Spencer Blair, Jonathan A. Busam, Samuel Forstner, John Glance, Guy Green, Anna Kawata, Akhila Kovvuri, Jonathan Martin, Evan Morgan, Morgan Sandhu, Rachel Sang, Rachel Scholz-Bright, Austin T. Welch, Andrew G. Wolff, Amanda Zhou, and Brendan Nyhan. 2020. Real Solutions for Fake News? Measuring the Effectiveness of General Warnings and ...

    work page doi:10.1007/s11109-019-09533-0 2020

  17. [17]

    Keith Coleman. 2021. Introducing Birdwatch, a community-based approach to misinformation. https://blog.x.com/en_us/topics/product/2021/ introducing-birdwatch-a-community-based-approach-to-misinformation

    work page 2021

  18. [18]

    Keith Coleman. 2022. Building a better Birdwatch. https://blog.x.com/en_us/topics/company/2022/building-a-better-birdwatch

    work page 2022

  19. [19]

    Community Notes [@CommunityNotes]. 2022. Beginning today, Community Notes are visible around the world. https://x.com/CommunityNotes/ status/1601753552476438528

    work page arXiv 2022

  20. [20]

    DeCook, and Shaheen Kanthawala

    Kelley Cotter, Julia R. DeCook, and Shaheen Kanthawala. 2022. Fact-Checking the Crisis: COVID-19, Infodemics, and the Platformization of Truth. Social Media + Society8, 1 (Jan. 2022), 20563051211069048. doi:10.1177/20563051211069048 Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd

    work page doi:10.1177/20563051211069048 2022

  21. [21]

    Florian Daniel, Pavel Kucherbaev, Cinzia Cappiello, Boualem Benatallah, and Mohammad Allahbakhsh. 2018. Quality Control in Crowdsourcing: A Survey of Quality Attributes, Assessment Techniques, and Assurance Actions.ACM Comput. Surv.51, 1 (Jan. 2018), 7:1–7:40. doi:10.1145/3148148

    work page doi:10.1145/3148148 2018

  22. [22]

    Bakker, Jay Baxter, and Martin Saveski

    Soham De, Michiel A. Bakker, Jay Baxter, and Martin Saveski. 2025. Supernotes: Driving consensus in crowd-sourced fact-checking. InProceedings of the ACM on web conference 2025 (Www ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, Sydney NSW, Australia and New York, NY, USA, 3751–3761. doi:10.1145/3696410.3714934 Number of pages: 11

    work page doi:10.1145/3696410.3714934 2025

  23. [23]

    Tim Draws, David La Barbera, Michael Soprano, Kevin Roitero, Davide Ceolin, Alessandro Checco, and Stefano Mizzaro. 2022. The Effects of Crowd Worker Biases in Fact-Checking Tasks. InProceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2114–2124. doi:10.11...

    work page doi:10.1145/3531146.3534629 2022

  24. [24]

    Chiara Patricia Drolsbach and Nicolas Pröllochs. 2023. Diffusion of community fact-checked misinformation on twitter.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.7, CSCW2 (Oct. 2023). doi:10.1145/3610058 Number of pages: 22 Place: New York, NY, USA Publisher: Association for Computing Machinery tex.articleno: 267 tex.issue_date: October 2023

    work page doi:10.1145/3610058 2023

  25. [25]

    Chiara Patricia Drolsbach, Kirill Solovev, and Nicolas Pröllochs. 2024. Community notes increase trust in fact-checking on social media.PNAS Nexus3, 7 (July 2024), pgae217. doi:10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae217

    work page doi:10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae217 2024

  26. [26]

    Vittoria Elliott. [n. d.]. Elon Musk’s Main Tool for Fighting Disinformation on X Is Making the Problem Worse, Insiders Claim.Wired([n. d.]). https://www.wired.com/story/x-community-notes-disinformation/ Section: tags

    work page

  27. [27]

    Ziv Epstein, Gordon Pennycook, and David Rand. 2020. Will the Crowd Game the Algorithm? Using Layperson Judgments to Combat Misinformation on Social Media by Downranking Distrusted Sources. InProceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–11. doi:10.1145/331...

    work page doi:10.1145/3313831.3376232 2020

  28. [28]

    Jenny Fan and Amy X. Zhang. 2020. Digital Juries: A Civics-Oriented Approach to Platform Governance. InProceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–14. doi:10.1145/3313831.3376293

    work page doi:10.1145/3313831.3376293 2020

  29. [29]

    Howe, and Helen Nissenbaum

    Mary Flanagan, Daniel C. Howe, and Helen Nissenbaum. 2008. Embodying Values in Technology: Theory and Practice. InInformation Technology and Moral Philosophy(1 ed.), Jeroen Van Den Hoven and John Weckert (Eds.). Cambridge University Press, 322–353. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511498725.017 Beyond Community Notes: A Framework for Understanding and Building Crowdsou...

    work page doi:10.1017/cbo9780511498725.017 2008

  30. [30]

    Batya Friedman and Helen Nissenbaum. 1996. Bias in computer systems.ACM Trans. Inf. Syst.14, 3 (July 1996), 330–347. doi:10.1145/230538.230561

    work page doi:10.1145/230538.230561 1996

  31. [31]

    Dilrukshi Gamage, Dilki Sewwandi, Min Zhang, and Arosha K Bandara. 2025. Labeling Synthetic Content: User Perceptions of Label Designs for AI-Generated Content on Social Media. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–29. doi:10.1145/3706598.3713171

    work page doi:10.1145/3706598.3713171 2025

  32. [32]

    2018.Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, Content Moderation, and the Hidden Decisions That Shape Social Media

    Tarleton Gillespie. 2018.Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, Content Moderation, and the Hidden Decisions That Shape Social Media. Yale University Press. Google-Books-ID: cOJgDwAAQBAJ

    work page 2018

  33. [33]

    James Grimmelmann. 2015. The virtues of moderation.Yale JL & Tech.17 (2015), 42

    work page 2015

  34. [34]

    Zhijiang Guo, Michael Schlichtkrull, and Andreas Vlachos. 2022. A Survey on Automated Fact-Checking.Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics10 (Feb. 2022), 178–206. doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00454

    work page doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00454 2022

  35. [35]

    Michael Hameleers. 2024. Why do social media users accept, doubt or resist corrective information? A qualitative analysis of comments in response to corrective information on social media.Journalism Studies25, 7 (2024), 776–793. doi:10.1080/1461670X.2024.2340591 Publisher: Routledge tex.eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2024.2340591

    work page doi:10.1080/1461670x.2024.2340591 2024

  36. [36]

    Naeemul Hassan, Bill Adair, James T Hamilton, Chengkai Li, Mark Tremayne, Jun Yang, and Cong Yu. [n. d.]. The Quest to Automate Fact-Checking. ([n. d.])

    work page

  37. [37]

    Naeemul Hassan, Chengkai Li, and Mark Tremayne. 2015. Detecting Check-worthy Factual Claims in Presidential Debates. InProceedings of the 24th ACM International on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM ’15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1835–1838. doi:10.1145/2806416.2806652

    work page doi:10.1145/2806416.2806652 2015

  38. [38]

    Bing He, Yibo Hu, Yeon-Chang Lee, Soyoung Oh, Gaurav Verma, and Srijan Kumar. 2025. A Survey on the Role of Crowds in Combating Online Misinformation: Annotators, Evaluators, and Creators.ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data19, 1 (Jan. 2025), 1–30. doi:10.1145/3694980

    work page doi:10.1145/3694980 2025

  39. [39]

    Lu He and Changyang He. 2022. Help Me #DebunkThis: Unpacking Individual and Community’s Collaborative Work in Information Credibility Assessment.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction6, CSCW2 (Nov. 2022), 1–31. doi:10.1145/3555138

    work page doi:10.1145/3555138 2022

  40. [40]

    Eelco Herder and Jouke Staring. 2024. Digital Junkfood on Social Media: To Each Their Own Poison. InProceedings of the 35th ACM Conference on Hypertext and Social Media (HT ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 126–135. doi:10.1145/3648188.3678163

    work page doi:10.1145/3648188.3678163 2024

  41. [41]

    Shagun Jhaver, Iris Birman, Eric Gilbert, and Amy Bruckman. 2019. Human-Machine Collaboration for Content Regulation: The Case of Reddit Automoderator.ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact.26, 5 (July 2019), 31:1–31:35. doi:10.1145/3338243

    work page doi:10.1145/3338243 2019

  42. [42]

    Robertson, and Christo Wilson

    Shan Jiang, Ronald E. Robertson, and Christo Wilson. 2020. Reasoning about Political Bias in Content Moderation.Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence34, 09 (April 2020), 13669–13672. doi:10.1609/aaai.v34i09.7117

    work page doi:10.1609/aaai.v34i09.7117 2020

  43. [43]

    2023.The Facts Behind Allegations of Political Bias on Social Media

    Ash Johnson. 2023.The Facts Behind Allegations of Political Bias on Social Media. Technical Report. https://itif.org/publications/2023/10/26/the- facts-behind-allegations-of-political-bias-on-social-media/

    work page 2023

  44. [44]

    Isaiah Jones, Brent Hecht, and Nicholas Vincent. 2022. Misleading Tweets and Helpful Notes: Investigating Data Labor by Twitter Birdwatch Users. InCompanion Publication of the 2022 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing(Virtual Event, Taiwan)(CSCW’22 Companion). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 68–71....

    work page doi:10.1145/3500868.3559461 2022

  45. [45]

    Prerna Juneja and Tanushree Mitra. 2022. Human and Technological Infrastructures of Fact-checking.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.6, CSCW2 (Nov. 2022), 418:1–418:36. doi:10.1145/3555143

    work page doi:10.1145/3555143 2022

  46. [46]

    Joel Kaplan. 2025. More Speech and Fewer Mistakes. https://about.fb.com/news/2025/01/meta-more-speech-fewer-mistakes/

    work page 2025

  47. [47]

    Nickerson, Michael Bernstein, Elizabeth Gerber, Aaron Shaw, John Zimmerman, Matt Lease, and John Horton

    Aniket Kittur, Jeffrey V. Nickerson, Michael Bernstein, Elizabeth Gerber, Aaron Shaw, John Zimmerman, Matt Lease, and John Horton. 2013. The future of crowd work. InProceedings of the 2013 conference on Computer supported cooperative work (CSCW ’13). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1301–1318. doi:10.1145/2441776.2441923

    work page doi:10.1145/2441776.2441923 2013

  48. [48]

    Andrew Konya, Luke Thorburn, Wasim Almasri, Oded Adomi Leshem, Ariel Procaccia, Lisa Schirch, and Michiel Bakker. 2025. Using collective dialogues and AI to find common ground between Israeli and Palestinian peacebuilders. InProceedings of the 2025 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT ’25). Association for Computing Machiner...

    work page doi:10.1145/3715275.3732022 2025

  49. [49]

    Kraut and Paul Resnick

    Robert E. Kraut and Paul Resnick. 2012.Building Successful Online Communities: Evidence-Based Social Design. MIT Press. Google-Books-ID: lIvBMYVxWJYC

    work page 2012

  50. [50]

    Travis Kriplean, Jonathan Morgan, Deen Freelon, Alan Borning, and Lance Bennett. 2012. Supporting reflective public thought with considerit. In Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW ’12). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 265–274. doi:10.1145/2145204.2145249

    work page doi:10.1145/2145204.2145249 2012

  51. [51]

    Simon Fox Kuuse, Uku Kangur, Roshni Chakraborty, and Rajesh Sharma. 2025. Crowdsourced Fact-Checking or Biased Commentary? Analyzing Political Bias in Twitter’s Community Notes. InCompanion Proceedings of the ACM on Web Conference 2025(Sydney NSW, Australia)(WWW ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2661–2669. doi:10.1145/3701716.3717533

    work page doi:10.1145/3701716.3717533 2025

  52. [52]

    Cliff Lampe and Paul Resnick. 2004. Slash(dot) and burn: distributed moderation in a large online conversation space. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’04). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 543–550. doi:10.1145/985692.985761

    work page doi:10.1145/985692.985761 2004

  53. [53]

    Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , articleno =

    Mina Lee, Katy Ilonka Gero, John Joon Young Chung, Simon Buckingham Shum, Vipul Raheja, Hua Shen, Subhashini Venugopalan, Thiemo Wambsganss, David Zhou, Emad A. Alghamdi, Tal August, Avinash Bhat, Madiha Zahrah Choksi, Senjuti Dutta, Jin L.C. Guo, Md Naimul Hoque, Yewon Kim, Simon Knight, Seyed Parsa Neshaei, Antonette Shibani, Disha Shrivastava, Lila Shr...

    work page doi:10.1145/3613904.3642697 2024

  54. [54]

    Haiwen Li, Soham De, Manon Revel, Andreas Haupt, Brad Miller, Keith Coleman, Jay Baxter, Martin Saveski, and Michiel A. Bakker. 2025. Scaling Human Judgment in Community Notes with LLMs. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2506.24118 arXiv:2506.24118 [cs]

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.24118 2025

  55. [55]

    Xingyu Liu, Li Qi, Laurent Wang, and Miriam J. Metzger. 2023. Checking the fact-checkers: The role of source type, perceived credibility, and individual differences in fact-checking effectiveness.Communication Research52, 6 (2023), 719–746. doi:10.1177/00936502231206419 tex.eprint: https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/00936502231206419

    work page doi:10.1177/00936502231206419 2023

  56. [56]

    Young, Victoria M

    Allan MacLean, Richard M. Young, Victoria M. E. Bellotti, and Thomas P. Moran. 1996. Questions, Options, and Criteria: Elements of Design Space Analysis. InDesign Rationale. CRC Press. Num Pages: 53

    work page 1996

  57. [57]

    Cameron Martel, Jennifer Allen, Gordon Pennycook, and David G. Rand. 2024. Crowds Can Effectively Identify Misinformation at Scale.Perspectives on Psychological Science19, 2 (March 2024), 477–488. doi:10.1177/17456916231190388 Publisher: SAGE Publications Inc

    work page doi:10.1177/17456916231190388 2024

  58. [58]

    Cameron Martel and David G. Rand. 2023. Misinformation warning labels are widely effective: A review of warning effects and their moderating features.Current Opinion in Psychology54 (Dec. 2023), 101710. doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2023.101710

    work page doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2023.101710 2023

  59. [59]

    Ariadna Matamoros-Fernández and Nadia Jude. 2025. The importance of centering harm in data infrastructures for ‘soft moderation’: X’s Community Notes as a case study.New Media & Society27, 4 (2025), 1986–2011. doi:10.1177/14614448251314399 tex.eprint: https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448251314399

    work page doi:10.1177/14614448251314399 2025

  60. [60]

    Nicholas Micallef, Vivienne Armacost, Nasir Memon, and Sameer Patil. 2022. True or False: Studying the Work Practices of Professional Fact-Checkers. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.6, CSCW1 (April 2022), 127:1–127:44. doi:10.1145/3512974

    work page doi:10.1145/3512974 2022

  61. [61]

    Saeedeh Mohammadi and Taha Yasseri. 2025. AI Feedback Enhances Community-Based Content Moderation through Engagement with Counterar- guments. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2507.08110 arXiv:2507.08110 [cs]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.08110 2025

  62. [62]

    Rohit Mujumdar and Srijan Kumar. 2022. HawkEye: a robust reputation system for community-based counter-misinformation. InProceedings of the 2021 IEEE/ACM international conference on advances in social networks analysis and mining (Asonam ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, Virtual Event, Netherlands and New York, NY, USA, 188–192. doi:10.1145/34873...

    work page doi:10.1145/3487351.3488343 2022

  63. [63]

    Naomi Nix, Will Oremus, and Aaron Gregg. 2025. Meta ends fact-checking, drawing praise from Trump.The Washington Post(Jan. 2025). https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2025/01/07/meta-factchecking-zuckerberg/

    work page 2025

  64. [64]

    Aviv Ovadya and Luke Thorburn. 2023. Bridging Systems: Open Problems for Countering Destructive Divisiveness across Ranking, Recommenders, and Governance. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2301.09976 arXiv:2301.09976 [cs]

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2301.09976 2023

  65. [65]

    Page, Joanne E

    Matthew J. Page, Joanne E. McKenzie, Patrick M. Bossuyt, Isabelle Boutron, Tammy C. Hoffmann, Cynthia D. Mulrow, Larissa Shamseer, Jennifer M. Tetzlaff, Elie A. Akl, Sue E. Brennan, Roger Chou, Julie Glanville, Jeremy M. Grimshaw, Asbjørn Hróbjartsson, Manoj M. Lalu, Tianjing Li, Elizabeth W. Loder, Evan Mayo-Wilson, Steve McDonald, Luke A. McGuinness, Le...

    work page doi:10.1136/bmj.n71 2021

  66. [66]

    Kenny Peng and James Grimmelmann. 2024. Rescuing Counterspeech: A Bridging-Based Approach to Combating Misinformation. doi:10.48550/ arXiv.2410.12699 arXiv:2410.12699 [cs]

    work page arXiv 2024

  67. [67]

    Gordon Pennycook and David G. Rand. 2019. Fighting misinformation on social media using crowdsourced judgments of news source quality. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences116, 7 (Feb. 2019), 2521–2526. doi:10.1073/pnas.1806781116 Publisher: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.1806781116 2019

  68. [68]

    Moritz Pilarski, Kirill Solovev, and Nicolas Pröllochs. 2023. Community Notes vs. Snoping: How the Crowd Selects Fact-Checking Targets on Social Media. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2305.09519 arXiv:2305.09519 [cs]

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.09519 2023

  69. [69]

    Jenny Preece. 1999. Empathic communities: balancing emotional and factual communication.Interacting with Computers12, 1 (Sept. 1999), 63–77. doi:10.1016/S0953-5438(98)00056-3

    work page doi:10.1016/s0953-5438(98)00056-3 1999

  70. [70]

    Adam Presser. [n. d.]. Testing a new feature to enhance content on TikTok. https://newsroom.tiktok.com

    work page

  71. [71]

    Thomas Renault, David Restrepo Amariles, and Aurore Troussel. 2024. Collaboratively adding context to social media posts reduces the sharing of false news. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2404.02803 arXiv:2404.02803 [econ]

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.02803 2024

  72. [72]

    Mohammed Saeed, Nicolas Traub, Maelle Nicolas, Gianluca Demartini, and Paolo Papotti. 2022. Crowdsourced fact-checking at twitter: How does the crowd compare with experts?. InProceedings of the 31st ACM international conference on information & knowledge management (Cikm ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, Atlanta, GA, USA and New York, NY, USA...

    work page doi:10.1145/3511808.3557279 2022

  73. [73]

    Brubaker

    Morgan Klaus Scheuerman, Jialun Aaron Jiang, Casey Fiesler, and Jed R. Brubaker. 2021. A Framework of Severity for Harmful Content Online. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction5, CSCW2 (Oct. 2021), 1–33. doi:10.1145/3479512

    work page doi:10.1145/3479512 2021

  74. [74]

    Joseph Seering. 2020. Reconsidering Self-Moderation: the Role of Research in Supporting Community-Based Models for Online Content Moderation. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.4, CSCW2 (Oct. 2020), 107:1–107:28. doi:10.1145/3415178

    work page doi:10.1145/3415178 2020

  75. [75]

    Erica Shusas and Andrea Forte. 2024. Trust and transparency: An exploratory study on emerging adults’ interpretations of credibility indicators on social media platforms. InExtended abstracts of the CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (Chi ea ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, Honolulu, HI, USA and New York, NY, USA. doi:10.1145/3...

    work page doi:10.1145/3613905.3650801 2024

  76. [76]

    Isaac Slaughter, Axel Peytavin, Johan Ugander, and Martin Saveski. 2025. Community Notes Moderate Engagement With and Diffusion of False Information Online. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2502.13322 arXiv:2502.13322 [cs]

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.13322 2025

  77. [77]

    Christopher Small. 2021. Polis: Escalar de la deliberación mediante el mapeo de espacios de opinión de alta dimensión.RECERCA. Revista de Pensament i Anàlisi(July 2021). doi:10.6035/recerca.5516

    work page doi:10.6035/recerca.5516 2021

  78. [78]

    Kirill Solovev and Nicolas Pröllochs. 2025. References to unbiased sources increase the helpfulness of community fact-checks. doi:10.48550/arXiv. 2503.10560 arXiv:2503.10560 [cs]

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.48550/arxiv 2025

  79. [79]

    Yuko Tanaka, Miwa Inuzuka, Hiromi Arai, Yoichi Takahashi, Minao Kukita, and Kentaro Inui. 2023. Who Does Not Benefit from Fact-checking Websites? A Psychological Characteristic Predicts the Selective Avoidance of Clicking Uncongenial Facts. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’23). Association for Computing ...

    work page doi:10.1145/3544548.3580826 2023

  80. [80]

    The Youtube Team. 2024. Testing new ways to offer viewers more context and information on videos. https://blog.youtube/news-and-events/new- ways-to-offer-viewers-more-context/

    work page 2024

Showing first 80 references.