论文标题
事实检查的人类和技术基础设施
Human and technological infrastructures of fact-checking
论文作者
论文摘要
对事实检查的需求不断提高,导致人们对开发系统和工具的兴趣日益增加,以使事实检查过程自动化。但是,这样的系统在实践上受到限制,因为它们的系统设计通常不考虑在现实世界中进行事实检查,而忽略了各种利益相关者群体的洞察力和需求,以实现事实核对过程。本文通过揭示支持和塑造事实检查工作的人类和技术的基础设施来解开事实检查过程。我们采访了26名属于16个事实核对团队和组织的参与者,这些参与者来自四大洲。通过这些访谈,我们通过识别和介绍六个主要利益相关者群体的角色,1)编辑,2)外部事实检查者,3)内部事实检查者,4)调查人员和研究人员,5)社交媒体经理和6)倡导者来描述和介绍六个主要利益相关者群体的角色,描述事实检查事实检查的人类基础架构。我们的发现强调,事实检查过程是各个利益相关者群体以及相关的技术和信息基础架构之间的协作努力。通过渲染对基础设施的可见性,我们揭示了事实检查如何发展为包括以短期主张为中心和以长期倡导为中心的事实核对事实来检查。我们的工作还确定了每个利益相关者群体所面临的关键社会和技术需求以及挑战。根据我们的发现,我们建议提高事实检查的质量需要在公民,信息和技术环境中进行系统的变化。
Increasing demands for fact-checking has led to a growing interest in developing systems and tools to automate the fact-checking process. However, such systems are limited in practice because their system design often does not take into account how fact-checking is done in the real world and ignores the insights and needs of various stakeholder groups core to the fact-checking process. This paper unpacks the fact-checking process by revealing the infrastructures -- both human and technological -- that support and shape fact-checking work. We interviewed 26 participants belonging to 16 fact-checking teams and organizations with representation from 4 continents. Through these interviews, we describe the human infrastructure of fact-checking by identifying and presenting, in-depth, the roles of six primary stakeholder groups, 1) Editors, 2) External fact-checkers, 3) In-house fact-checkers, 4) Investigators and researchers, 5) Social media managers, and 6) Advocators. Our findings highlight that the fact-checking process is a collaborative effort among various stakeholder groups and associated technological and informational infrastructures. By rendering visibility to the infrastructures, we reveal how fact-checking has evolved to include both short-term claims centric and long-term advocacy centric fact-checking. Our work also identifies key social and technical needs and challenges faced by each stakeholder group. Based on our findings, we suggest that improving the quality of fact-checking requires systematic changes in the civic, informational, and technological contexts.