Subjective questions such as does neymar dive', or is clinton lying', or is trump a fascist', are popular queries to web search engines, as can be seen by autocompletion suggestions on Google, Yahoo and Bing. In the era of cognitive computing, beyond search, they could be handled as hypotheses issued for evaluation. Our vision is to leverage on unstructured data and metadata of the rich user-generated multimedia that is often shared as material evidence in favor or against hypotheses in social media platforms. In this paper we present two preliminary experiments along those lines and discuss challenges for a cognitive computing system that collects material evidence from user-generated multimedia towards aggregating it into some form of collective decision on the hypothesis.
. Our work is related to the so-called debating' technologies at IBM @cite_2 . Their work is strongly based on machine learning methods to track correlated text passages that may be spread over a corpus. Going beyond the observational hypotheses that are more on our sight and are typical of social media, the goal is to enable eliciting all kind of textual information that may be relevant as evidence to decide on a claim. An example is: (topic) ''; (claim) ''; (evidence) .'' To date, as far as we know this is yet a fully NLP project, which does not consider multimedia data for grounding on material evidence.
@cite_2
2250762536
Deciding whether a claim is true or false often requires understanding the evidence supporting and contradicting the claim. However, when learning about a controversial claim, human biases and viewpoints may affect which evidence documents are considered "trustworthy" or credible. It is important to overcome this bias and know both viewpoints to get a balanced perspective. In this paper, we study various factors that affect learning about the truthfulness of controversial claims. We designed a user study to understand the impact of these factors. Specifically, we studied the impact of presenting evidence with contrasting viewpoints and source expertise rating on how users accessed the evidence documents. This would help us optimize how to teach users about controversial topics in the most effective way, and to design better claim verification systems. We find that users do not seek contrasting viewpoints by themselves, but explicitly presenting contrasting evidence helps them get a well-rounded understanding of the topic. Furthermore, explicit knowledge of the source credibility and the context not only affects what users read, but also how credible they perceive the document to be.