Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Are Fact-Checking Tools Helpful? An Exploration of the Usability of Google Fact Check

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2402.13244 v6 pith:AECTUZL6 submitted 2024-02-20 cs.SI

classification cs.SI
keywords fact-checkingresultscheckclaimsfalsefactgoogleretrieve
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Fact-checking-specific search tools such as Google Fact Check are a promising way to combat misinformation on social media, especially during events bringing significant social influence, such as the COVID-19 pandemic and the U.S. presidential elections. However, the usability of such an approach has not been thoroughly studied. We evaluated the performance of Google Fact Check by analyzing the retrieved fact-checking results regarding 1,000 COVID-19-related false claims and found it able to retrieve the fact-checking results for 15.8% of the input claims, and the rendered results are relatively reliable. We also found that the false claims receiving different fact-checking verdicts (i.e., "False," "Partly False," "True," and "Unratable") tend to reflect diverse emotional tones, and fact-checking sources tend to check the claims in different lengths and using dictionary words to various extents. Claim variations addressing the same issue yet described differently are likely to retrieve distinct fact-checking results. We suggest that the quantities of the retrieved fact-checking results could be optimized and that slightly adjusting input wording may be the best practice for users to retrieve more useful information. This study aims to contribute to the understanding of state-of-the-art fact-checking tools and information integrity.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Adversarial Attacks Against Automated Fact-Checking: A Survey

    cs.CL 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A survey that organizes adversarial attacks on automated fact-checking into claim, evidence, and claim-evidence pair categories, and reports that current defenses address 13 of the 53 surveyed attacks.

Pith tools