Community Question Answering (cQA) forums are very popular nowadays, as they represent effective means for communities around particular topics to share information. Unfortunately, this information is not always factual. Thus, here we explore a new dimension in the context of cQA, which has been ignored so far: checking the veracity of answers to particular questions in cQA forums. As this is a new problem, we create a specialized dataset for it. We further propose a novel multi-faceted model, which captures information from the answer content (what is said and how), from the author profile (who says it), from the rest of the community forum (where it is said), and from external authoritative sources of information (external support). Evaluation results show a MAP value of 86.54, which is 21 points absolute above the baseline.
There is an increasing amount of false claims in news, social media, and other web sources. While prior work on truth discovery has focused on the case of checking factual statements, this paper addresses the novel task of assessing the credibility of arbitrary claims made in natural-language text - in an open-domain setting without any assumptions about the structure of the claim, or the community where it is made. Our solution is based on automatically finding sources in news and social media, and feeding these into a distantly supervised classifier for assessing the credibility of a claim (i.e., true or fake). For inference, our method leverages the joint interaction between the language of articles about the claim and the reliability of the underlying web sources. Experiments with claims from the popular website snopes.com and from reported cases of Wikipedia hoaxes demonstrate the viability of our methods and their superior accuracy over various baselines. Media seems to have become more partisan, often providing a biased coverage of news catering to the interest of specific groups. It is therefore essential to identify credible information content that provides an objective narrative of an event. News communities such as digg, reddit, or newstrust offer recommendations, reviews, quality ratings, and further insights on journalistic works. However, there is a complex interaction between different factors in such online communities: fairness and style of reporting, language clarity and objectivity, topical perspectives (like political viewpoint), expertise and bias of community members, and more. This paper presents a model to systematically analyze the different interactions in a news community between users, news, and sources. We develop a probabilistic graphical model that leverages this joint interaction to identify 1) highly credible news articles, 2) trustworthy news sources, and 3) expert users who perform the role of "citizen journalists" in the community. Our method extends CRF models to incorporate real-valued ratings, as some communities have very fine-grained scales that cannot be easily discretized without losing information. To the best of our knowledge, this paper is the first full-fledged analysis of credibility, trust, and expertise in news communities.