A new era of Information Warfare has arrived. Various actors, including state-sponsored ones, are weaponizing information on Online Social Networks to run false information campaigns with targeted manipulation of public opinion on specific topics. These false information campaigns can have dire consequences to the public: mutating their opinions and actions, especially with respect to critical world events like major elections. Evidently, the problem of false information on the Web is a crucial one, and needs increased public awareness, as well as immediate attention from law enforcement agencies, public institutions, and in particular, the research community. In this paper, we make a step in this direction by providing a taxonomy of the Web's false information ecosystem, comprising various types of false information, actors, and their motives. We report a comprehensive overview of existing research on the false information ecosystem by identifying several lines of work: 1) how the public perceives false information; 2) understanding the propagation of false information; 3) detecting and containing false information on the Web; and 4) false information on the political stage. Finally, for each of these lines of work, we report several future research directions that can help us better understand and mitigate the emerging problem of false information dissemination on the Web.
Evaluating information accuracy in social media is an increasingly important and well-studied area, but limited research has compared journalist-sourced accuracy assessments to their crowdsourced counterparts. This paper demonstrates the differences between these two populations by comparing the features used to predict accuracy assessments in two Twitter data sets: CREDBANK and PHEME. While our findings are consistent with existing results on feature importance, we develop models that outperform past research. We also show limited overlap exists between the features used by journalists and crowdsourced assessors, and the resulting models poorly predict each other but produce statistically correlated results. This correlation suggests crowdsourced workers are assessing a different aspect of these stories than their journalist counterparts, but these two aspects are linked in a significant way. These differences may be explained by contrasting factual with perceived accuracy as assessed by expert journalists and non-experts respectively. Following this outcome, we also show preliminary results that models trained from crowdsourced workers outperform journalist-trained models in identifying highly shared "fake news" stories. Research suggests that fact checking corrections have only a limited impact on the spread of false rumors. However, research has not considered that fact-checking may be socially contingent, meaning there are social contexts in which truth may be more or less preferred. In particular, we argue that strong social connections between fact-checkers and rumor spreaders encourage the latter to prefer sharing accurate information, making them more likely to accept corrections. We test this argument on real corrections made on Twitter between Janurary 2012 and April, 2014. As hypothesized, we find that individuals who follow and are followed by the people who correct them are significantly more likely to accept the correction than individuals confronted by strangers. We then replicate our findings on new data drawn from November 2015 to February, 2016. These findings suggest that the underlying social structure is an important factor in the correction of misinformation. The proliferation of misinformation in online news and its amplification by platforms are a growing concern, leading to numerous efforts to improve the detection of and response to misinformation. Given the variety of approaches, collective agreement on the indicators that signify credible content could allow for greater collaboration and data-sharing across initiatives. In this paper, we present an initial set of indicators for article credibility defined by a diverse coalition of experts. These indicators originate from both within an article's text as well as from external sources or article metadata. As a proof-of-concept, we present a dataset of 40 articles of varying credibility annotated with our indicators by 6 trained annotators using specialized platforms. We discuss future steps including expanding annotation, broadening the set of indicators, and considering their use by platforms and the public, towards the development of interoperable standards for content credibility.