Our work considers leveraging crowd signals for detecting fake news and is motivated by tools recently introduced by Facebook that enable users to flag fake news. By aggregating users' flags, our goal is to select a small subset of news every day, send them to an expert (e.g., via a third-party fact-checking organization), and stop the spread of news identified as fake by an expert. The main objective of our work is to minimize the spread of misinformation by stopping the propagation of fake news in the network. It is especially challenging to achieve this objective as it requires detecting fake news with high-confidence as quickly as possible. We show that in order to leverage users' flags efficiently, it is crucial to learn about users' flagging accuracy. We develop a novel algorithm, DETECTIVE, that performs Bayesian inference for detecting fake news and jointly learns about users' flagging accuracy over time. Our algorithm employs posterior sampling to actively trade off exploitation (selecting news that maximize the objective value at a given epoch) and exploration (selecting news that maximize the value of information towards learning about users' flagging accuracy). We demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach via extensive experiments and show the power of leveraging community signals for fake news detection.
 Twitter is an efficient conduit of information for millions of usersaround the world. Its ability to quickly spread information to a largenumber of people makes it an efficient way to shape information and,hence, shape public opinion. We study the tweeting behavior of Twitter propagandists, users who consistently expressthe same opinion or ideology, focusing on two online communities: the2010 Nevada senate race and the 2011 debt-ceiling debate. We identify several extreme tweeting patterns thatcould characterize users who spread propaganda: (1) sending high volumesof tweets over short periods of time, (2) retweeting whilepublishing little original content, (3) quickly retweeting, and (4) colluding with other, seeminglyunrelated, users to send duplicate or near-duplicate messages on thesame topic simultaneously. These four features appear to distinguishtweeters who spread propaganda from other more neutral users and could serve asstarting point for developing behavioral-based propaganda detection techniquesfor Twitter. This study determines the major difference between rumors and non-rumors and explores rumor classification performance levels over varying time windows—from the first three days to nearly two months. A comprehensive set of user, structural, linguistic, and temporal features was examined and their relative strength was compared from near-complete date of Twitter. Our contribution is at providing deep insight into the cumulative spreading patterns of rumors over time as well as at tracking the precise changes in predictive powers across rumor features. Statistical analysis finds that structural and temporal features distinguish rumors from non-rumors over a long-term window, yet they are not available during the initial propagation phase. In contrast, user and linguistic features are readily available and act as a good indicator during the initial propagation phase. Based on these findings, we suggest a new rumor classification algorithm that achieves competitive accuracy over both short and long time windows. These findings provide new insights for explaining rumor mechanism theories and for identifying features of early rumor detection. During sudden onset crisis events, the presence of spam, rumors and fake content on Twitter reduces the value of information contained on its messages (or “tweets”). A possible solution to this problem is to use machine learning to automatically evaluate the credibility of a tweet, i.e. whether a person would deem the tweet believable or trustworthy. This has been often framed and studied as a supervised classification problem in an off-line (post-hoc) setting. Traditional fact checking by expert journalists cannot keep up with the enormous volume of information that is now generated online. Computational fact checking may significantly enhance our ability to evaluate the veracity of dubious information. Here we show that the complexities of human fact checking can be approximated quite well by finding the shortest path between concept nodes under properly defined semantic proximity metrics on knowledge graphs. Framed as a network problem this approach is feasible with efficient computational techniques. We evaluate this approach by examining tens of thousands of claims related to history, entertainment, geography, and biographical information using a public knowledge graph extracted from Wikipedia. Statements independently known to be true consistently receive higher support via our method than do false ones. These findings represent a significant step toward scalable computational fact-checking methods that may one day mitigate the spread of harmful misinformation. In the era of big data, information regarding the same objects can be collected from increasingly more sources. Unfortunately, there usually exist conflicts among the information coming from different sources. To tackle this challenge, truth discovery, i.e., to integrate multi-source noisy information by estimating the reliability of each source, has emerged as a hot topic. In many real world applications, however, the information may come sequentially, and as a consequence, the truth of objects as well as the reliability of sources may be dynamically evolving. Existing truth discovery methods, unfortunately, cannot handle such scenarios. To address this problem, we investigate the temporal relations among both object truths and source reliability, and propose an incremental truth discovery framework that can dynamically update object truths and source weights upon the arrival of new data. Theoretical analysis is provided to show that the proposed method is guaranteed to converge at a fast rate. The experiments on three real world applications and a set of synthetic data demonstrate the advantages of the proposed method over state-of-the-art truth discovery methods. We analyze the information credibility of news propagated through Twitter, a popular microblogging service. Previous research has shown that most of the messages posted on Twitter are truthful, but the service is also used to spread misinformation and false rumors, often unintentionally. On this paper we focus on automatic methods for assessing the credibility of a given set of tweets. Specifically, we analyze microblog postings related to "trending" topics, and classify them as credible or not credible, based on features extracted from them. We use features from users' posting and re-posting ("re-tweeting") behavior, from the text of the posts, and from citations to external sources. We evaluate our methods using a significant number of human assessments about the credibility of items on a recent sample of Twitter postings. Our results shows that there are measurable differences in the way messages propagate, that can be used to classify them automatically as credible or not credible, with precision and recall in the range of 70 to 80 . Online knowledge repositories typically rely on their users or dedicated editors to evaluate the reliability of their contents. These explicit feedback mechanisms can be viewed as noisy measurements of both information reliability and information source trustworthiness. Can we leverage these noisy measurements, often biased, to distill a robust, unbiased and interpretable measure of both notions? In this paper, we argue that the large volume of digital traces left by the users within knowledge repositories also reflect information reliability and source trustworthiness. In particular, we propose a temporal point process modeling framework which links the temporal behavior of the users to information reliability and source trustworthiness. Furthermore, we develop an efficient convex optimization procedure to learn the parameters of the model from historical traces of the evaluations provided by these users. Experiments on real-world data gathered from Wikipedia and Stack Overflow show that our modeling framework accurately predicts evaluation events, provides an interpretable measure of information reliability and source trustworthiness, and yields interesting insights about real-world events. Wikipedia is a major source of information for many people. However, false information on Wikipedia raises concerns about its credibility. One way in which false information may be presented on Wikipedia is in the form of hoax articles, i.e., articles containing fabricated facts about nonexistent entities or events. In this paper we study false information on Wikipedia by focusing on the hoax articles that have been created throughout its history. We make several contributions. First, we assess the real-world impact of hoax articles by measuring how long they survive before being debunked, how many pageviews they receive, and how heavily they are referred to by documents on the Web. We find that, while most hoaxes are detected quickly and have little impact on Wikipedia, a small number of hoaxes survive long and are well cited across the Web. Second, we characterize the nature of successful hoaxes by comparing them to legitimate articles and to failed hoaxes that were discovered shortly after being created. We find characteristic differences in terms of article structure and content, embeddedness into the rest of Wikipedia, and features of the editor who created the hoax. Third, we successfully apply our findings to address a series of classification tasks, most notably to determine whether a given article is a hoax. And finally, we describe and evaluate a task involving humans distinguishing hoaxes from non-hoaxes. We find that humans are not particularly good at the task and that our automated classifier outperforms them by a big margin. With the growth of social media, rumors are spread fast and viewed by more and more people on the Internet. Rumors bring significant harm to daily life and public security. It is crucial to evaluate the credibility of information and detect the rumors on social media automatically. In this work, we establish a Network Information Credibility Evaluation (NICE) platform, which collects a database of rumors that have been verified on Sina Weibo and automatically evaluates the information which is generated by users on social media but has not been verified. Users can use a query to search related information. If the according information appears in our database, users can identify it is a rumor immediately. Otherwise, NICE will show users with realtime results crawled automatically from social media and can calculate credibility of a specific result with our algorithm. Our algorithm learns dynamic representations for information on social media based on behavior information, dynamic information, user information and comment information. Then, we use an ordinary logistic regression to classify information into rumors and non-rumors. Based on our algorithm, NICE system achieves satisfactory performance on evaluating information credibility and detecting rumors on social media. Many previous techniques identify trending topics in social media, even topics that are not pre-defined. We present a technique to identify trending rumors, which we define as topics that include disputed factual claims. Putting aside any attempt to assess whether the rumors are true or false, it is valuable to identify trending rumors as early as possible. It is extremely difficult to accurately classify whether every individual post is or is not making a disputed factual claim. We are able to identify trending rumors by recasting the problem as finding entire clusters of posts whose topic is a disputed factual claim. The key insight is that when there is a rumor, even though most posts do not raise questions about it, there may be a few that do. If we can find signature text phrases that are used by a few people to express skepticism about factual claims and are rarely used to express anything else, we can use those as detectors for rumor clusters. Indeed, we have found a few phrases that seem to be used exactly that way, including: "Is this true?", "Really?", and "What?". Relatively few posts related to any particular rumor use any of these enquiry phrases, but lots of rumor diffusion processes have some posts that do and have them quite early in the diffusion. We have developed a technique based on searching for the enquiry phrases, clustering similar posts together, and then collecting related posts that do not contain these simple phrases. We then rank the clusters by their likelihood of really containing a disputed factual claim. The detector, which searches for the very rare but very informative phrases, combined with clustering and a classifier on the clusters, yields surprisingly good performance. On a typical day of Twitter, about a third of the top 50 clusters were judged to be rumors, a high enough precision that human analysts might be willing to sift through them. 