Tag Archives: Veracity

Predicting the Credibility of Disaster Tweets Automatically

“Predicting Information Credibility in Time-Sensitive Social Media” is one of this year’s most interesting and important studies on “information forensics”. The analysis, co-authored by my QCRI colleague ChaTo Castello, will be published in Internet Research and should be required reading for anyone interested in the role of social media for emergency management and humanitarian response. The authors study disaster tweets and find that there are measurable differences in the way they propagate. They show that “these differences are related to the news-worthiness and credibility of the information conveyed,” a finding that en-abled them to develop an automatic and remarkably accurate way to identify credible information on Twitter.

The new study builds on this previous research, which analyzed the veracity of tweets during a major disaster. The research found “a correlation between how information propagates and the credibility that is given by the social network to it. Indeed, the reflection of real-time events on social media reveals propagation patterns that surprisingly has less variability the greater a news value is.” The graphs below depict this information propagation behavior during the 2010 Chile Earthquake.

The graphs depict the re-tweet activity during the first hours following earth-quake. Grey edges depict past retweets. Some of the re-tweet graphs reveal interesting patterns even within 30-minutes of the quake. “In some cases tweet propagation takes the form of a tree. This is the case of direct quoting of infor-mation. In other cases the propagation graph presents cycles, which indicates that the information is being commented and replied, as well as passed on.” When studying false rumor propagation, the analysis reveals that “false rumors tend to be questioned much more than confirmed truths [...].”

Building on these insights, the authors studied over 200,000 disaster tweets and identified 16 features that best separate credible and non-credible tweets. For example, users who spread credible tweets tend to have more followers. In addition, “credible tweets tend to include references to URLs which are included on the top-10,000 most visited domains on the Web. In general, credible tweets tend to include more URLs, and are longer than non credible tweets.” Further-more, credible tweets also tend to express negative feelings whilst non-credible tweets concentrate more on positive sentiments. Finally, question- and exclama-tion-marks tend to be associated with non-credible tweets, as are tweets that use first and third person pronouns. All 16 features are listed below.

• Average number of tweets posted by authors of the tweets on the topic in past.
• Average number of followees of authors posting these tweets.
•  Fraction of tweets having a positive sentiment.
•  Fraction of tweets having a negative sentiment.
•  Fraction of tweets containing a URL that contain most frequent URL.
•  Fraction of tweets containing a URL.
•  Fraction of URLs pointing to a domain among top 10,000 most visited ones.
•  Fraction of tweets containing a user mention.
•  Average length of the tweets.
•  Fraction of tweets containing a question mark.
•  Fraction of tweets containing an exclamation mark.
•  Fraction of tweets containing a question or an exclamation mark.
•  Fraction of tweets containing a “smiling” emoticons.
•  Fraction of tweets containing a first-person pronoun.
•  Fraction of tweets containing a third-person pronoun.
•  Maximum depth of the propagation trees.

Using natural language processing (NLP) and machine learning (ML), the authors used the insights above to develop an automatic classifier for finding credible English-language tweets. This classifier had a 86% AUC. This measure, which ranges from 0 to 1, captures the classifier’s predictive quality. When applied to Spanish-language tweets, the classifier’s AUC was still relatively high at 82%, which demonstrates the robustness of the approach.

Interested in learning more about “information forensics”? See this link and the articles below:

Accelerating the Verification of Social Media Content

Journalists have already been developing a multitude of tactics to verify user-generated content shared on social media. As noted here, the BBC has a dedicated User-Generated Content (UGC) Hub that is tasked with verifying social media information. The UK Guardian, Al-Jazeera, CNN and others are also developing competency in what I refer to as “information forensics”. It turns out there are many tactics that can be used to try and verify social media content. Indeed, applying most of these existing tactics can be highly time consuming.

So building a decision-tree that combines these tactics is the way to go. But doing digital detective work online is still a time-intensive effort. Numerous pieces of digital evidence need to be collected in order to triangulate and ascertain the veracity of just one given report. We therefore need tools that can accelerate the processing of a verification decision-tree. To be sure, information is the most perishable commodity in a crisis—for both journalists and humanitarian pro-fessionals. This means that after a certain period of time, it no longer matters whether a report has been verified or not because the news cycle or crisis has unfolded further since.

This is why I’m a fan of tools like Rapportive. The point is to have the decision-tree not only serve as an instruction-set on what types of evidence to collect but to actually have a platform that collects that information. There are two general strategies that could be employed to accelerate and scale the verification process. One is to split the tasks listed in the decision-tree into individual micro-tasks that can be distributed and independently completed using crowdsourcing. A second strategy is to develop automated ways to collect the evidence.

Of course, both strategies could also be combined. Indeed, some tasks are far better suited for automation while others can only be carried about by humans. In sum, the idea here is to save journalists and humanitarians time by considerably reducing the time it takes to verify user-generated content posted on social media. I am also particularly interested in gamification approaches to solve major challenges, like the Protein Fold It game. So if you know of any projects seeking to solve the verification challenge described above in novel ways, I’d be very grateful for your input in the comments section below. Thank you!

Crowdsourcing for Human Rights Monitoring: Challenges and Opportunities for Information Collection & Verification

This new book, Human Rights and Information Communication Technologies: Trends and Consequences of Use, promises to be a valuable resource to both practitioners and academics interested in leveraging new information & communication technologies (ICTs) in the context of human rights work. I had the distinct pleasure of co-authoring a chapter for this book with my good colleague and friend Jessica Heinzelman. We focused specifically on the use of crowdsourcing and ICTs for information collection and verification. Below is the Abstract & Introduction for our chapter.

Abstract

Accurate information is a foundational element of human rights work. Collecting and presenting factual evidence of violations is critical to the success of advocacy activities and the reputation of organizations reporting on abuses. To ensure credibility, human rights monitoring has historically been conducted through highly controlled organizational structures that face mounting challenges in terms of capacity, cost and access. The proliferation of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) provide new opportunities to overcome some of these challenges through crowdsourcing. At the same time, however, crowdsourcing raises new challenges of verification and information overload that have made human rights professionals skeptical of their utility. This chapter explores whether the efficiencies gained through an open call for monitoring and reporting abuses provides a net gain for human rights monitoring and analyzes the opportunities and challenges that new and traditional methods pose for verifying crowdsourced human rights reporting.

Introduction

Accurate information is a foundational element of human rights work. Collecting and presenting factual evidence of violations is critical to the success of advocacy activities and the reputation of organizations reporting on abuses. To ensure credibility, human rights monitoring has historically been conducted through highly controlled organizational structures that face mounting challenges in terms of capacity, cost and access.

The proliferation of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) may provide new opportunities to overcome some of these challenges. For example, ICTs make it easier to engage large networks of unofficial volunteer monitors to crowdsource the monitoring of human rights abuses. Jeff Howe coined the term “crowdsourcing” in 2006, defining it as “the act of taking a job traditionally performed by a designated agent and outsourcing it to an undefined, generally large group of people in the form of an open call” (Howe, 2009). Applying this concept to human rights monitoring, Molly Land (2009) asserts that, “given the limited resources available to fund human rights advocacy…amateur involvement in human rights activities has the potential to have a significant impact on the field” (p. 2). That said, she warns that professionalization in human rights monitoring “has arisen not because of an inherent desire to control the process, but rather as a practical response to the demands of reporting – namely, the need to ensure the accuracy of the information contained in the report” (Land, 2009, p. 3).

Because “accuracy is the human rights monitor’s ultimate weapon” and the advocate’s “ability to influence governments and public opinion is based on the accuracy of their information,” the risk of inaccurate information may trump any advantages gained through crowdsourcing (Codesria & Amnesty International, 2000, p. 32). To this end, the question facing human rights organizations that wish to leverage the power of the crowd is “whether [crowdsourced reports] can accomplish the same [accurate] result without a centralized hierarchy” (Land, 2009). The answer to this question depends on whether reliable verification techniques exist so organizations can use crowdsourced information in a way that does not jeopardize their credibility or compromise established standards. While many human rights practitioners (and indeed humanitarians) still seem to be allergic to the term crowdsourcing, further investigation reveals that established human rights organizations already use crowdsourcing and verification techniques to validate crowdsourced information and that there is great potential in the field for new methods of information collection and verification.

This chapter analyzes the opportunities and challenges that new and traditional methods pose for verifying crowdsourced human rights reporting. The first section reviews current methods for verification in human rights monitoring. The second section outlines existing methods used to collect and validate crowdsourced human rights information. Section three explores the practical opportunities that crowdsourcing offers relative to traditional methods. The fourth section outlines critiques and solutions for crowdsourcing reliable information. The final section proposes areas for future research.

The book is available for purchase here. Warning: you won’t like the price but at least they’re taking an iTunes approach, allowing readers to purchase single chapters if they prefer. Either way, Jess and I were not paid for our contribution.

For more information on how to verify crowdsourced information, please visit the following links:

  • Information Forensics: Five Case Studies on How to Verify Crowdsourced Information from Social Media (Link)
  • How to Verify and Counter Rumors in Social Media (Link)
  • Social Media and Life Cycle of Rumors during Crises (Link)
  • Truthiness as Probability: Moving Beyond the True or False Dichotomy when Verifying Social Media (Link)
  • Crowdsourcing Versus Putin (Link)