skip to main content
opinion
Free Access

Can Crowdsourcing Rescue the Social Marketplace of Ideas?

Published:23 August 2023Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

How collaborative designs and community-based moderation could improve social media.

References

  1. Allen, J. et al. Scaling up fact-checking using the wisdom of crowds. Science Advances 7, 36 (2021) Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Allen, J. et al. Birds of a feather don't fact-check each other: Partisanship and the evaluation of news in Twitter's Birdwatch crowdsourced fact-checking program. In CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (2022) Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Bail, C.A. et al. Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization. In Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115, 37 (2018) Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Blex, C. and Yasseri, T. Positive algorithmic bias cannot stop fragmentation in homophilic networks. The Journal of Mathematical Sociology 46, 1 (2022) Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Ciampaglia, G.L. et al. The production of information in the attention economy. Scientific Reports 5, 1 (2015) Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Ciampaglia, G.L. et al. How algorithmic popularity bias hinders or promotes quality. Scientific Reports 8, 1 (2018) Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Coleman, K. Introducing Birdwatch, a community-based approach to misinformation. Twitter (2021); https://web.archive.org/web/20211011030341/ https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/product/2021/introducing-birdwatch-a-community-based-approach-to-misinformationGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Conover, M.D. et al. Partisan asymmetries in online political activity. EPJ Data Science 1, 6 (2012) Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Gallacher, J.D. et al. Online engagement between opposing political protest groups via social media is linked to physical violence of offline encounters. Social Media + Society 7, 1 (2021) Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Giles, J. Internet encyclopaedias go head to head. Nature 438, 7070 (2005) Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Ibrahim, K. et al. Gender imbalance and spatiotemporal patterns of contributions to citizen science projects: The case of Zooniverse. Frontiers in Physics 9, 650720 (2021) Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Kubin, E. et al. Personal experiences bridge moral and political divides better than facts. In Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118, 6 (2021) Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Levy, R. Social media, news consumption, and polarization: Evidence from a field experiment. American Economic Review 111, 3 (2021) Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Nikolov, D. et al. Right and left, partisanship predicts (asymmetric) vulnerability to misinformation. HKS Misinformation Review 1, 7 (2021) Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Pennycook, G. and Rand, D.G. Fighting misinformation on social media using crowdsourced judgments of news source quality. In Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116, 7 (2019) Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Rudas, C. et al. Understanding and coping with extremism in an online collaborative environment: A data-driven modeling. PLoS ONE 12, 3 (2017) Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Ruprechter, T. et al. Relating Wikipedia article quality to edit behavior and link structure. Applied Network Science 5, 61 (2020) Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Sasahara, K. et al. Social influence and unfollowing accelerate the emergence of echo chambers. Journal of Computational Social Science 4, 1 (2020) Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Schmidt, A.L. et al. Anatomy of news consumption on Facebook. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114, 12 (2017) Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Shi, F. et al. The wisdom of polarized crowds. Nature Human Behaviour 3, 4 (2019), 329--336 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Silverman, H. Helping fact-checkers identify false claims faster. Facebook (2019); https://web.archive.org/web/20210929132905/https://about.fb.com/news/2019/12/helping-fact-checkers/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Török, J. et al. Opinions, conflicts, and consensus: Modeling social dynamics in a collaborative environment. Physical Review Letters 110, 8 (2013) Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Tsvetkova, M. et al. Even good bots fight: The case of Wikipedia. PloS ONE 12, 2 (2017) Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Yasseri, T. et al. Dynamics of conflicts in Wikipedia. PLoS ONE 7, 6 (2012) Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Can Crowdsourcing Rescue the Social Marketplace of Ideas?

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in

        Full Access

        • Published in

          cover image Communications of the ACM
          Communications of the ACM  Volume 66, Issue 9
          September 2023
          97 pages
          ISSN:0001-0782
          EISSN:1557-7317
          DOI:10.1145/3617556
          • Editor:
          • James Larus
          Issue’s Table of Contents

          Copyright © 2023 Owner/Author

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 23 August 2023

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • opinion

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader

        HTML Format

        View this article in HTML Format .

        View HTML Format