skip to main content
10.1145/3341161.3343683acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageskddConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

News credibility scroing: suggestion of research methodology to determine the reliability of news distributed in SNS

Authors Info & Claims
Published:15 January 2020Publication History

ABSTRACT

We provide a more optimized model for calculating credibility score of information in SNS. We premeditated two heuristics which using characteristics of the credibility score for each document: (1) Expertise and (2) unbiasedness. Also, we divide the users in SNS into three types: (1) Creator (2) Distributor, and (3) Follower. Our model is designed to calculate Expertise and Un-biasedness for three types of SNS users (Creator, Distributor, and Follower) by using logistic regression model. Our model not only reveals whether the information is 'accurate and unbiased', but also investigates the 'source, distribution channel, and audience' of the information. We expect our credibility scoring will give answers to the 'qualitative problem' our online world is currently facing.

References

  1. Kiousis, Spiro. "Public trust or mistrust? Perceptions of media credibility in the information age." Mass Communication & Society 4.4, 2001, pp.381-403.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Kolari, Pranam, Tim Finin, and Anupam Joshi. "SVMs for the blogosphere: Blog identification and splog detection." AAAI Spring Symposium on Computational Approaches to Analyzing Weblogs. Vol. 4. 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Lin, Yu-Ru, et al. "Detecting splogs via temporal dynamics using self-similarity analysis." ACM Transactions on the Web (TWEB) 2.1, 2008, pp.4.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Macdonald, Craig, Iadh Ounis, and Ian Soboroff. "Is spam an issue for opinionated blog post search?." Proceedings of the 32nd international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval. ACM, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Jindal, Nitin, and Bing Liu. "Opinion spam and analysis." Proceedings of the international conference on Web search and web data mining. ACM, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Hu, Meiqun, et al. "Measuring article quality in wikipedia: models and evaluation." Proceedings of the sixteenth ACM conference on Conference on information and knowledge management. ACM, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Agichtein, Eugene, et al. "Finding high-quality content in social media." Proceedings of the international conference on Web search and web data mining. ACM, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Zhou, Yun, and W. Bruce Croft. "Document quality models for web ad hoc retrieval." Proceedings of the 14th ACM international conference on Information and knowledge management. ACM, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Jeon, Jiwoon, et al. "A framework to predict the quality of answers with non-textual features." Proceedings of the 29th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval. ACM, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Balog, Krisztian, Leif Azzopardi, and Maarten De Rijke. "Formal models for expert finding in enterprise corpora." Proceedings of the 29th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval. ACM, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Zhang, Jing, Jie Tang, and Juanzi Li. "Expert finding in a social network." Advances in Databases: Concepts, Systems and Applications. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2007. pp.1066-1069.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Petkova, Desislava, and W. Bruce Croft. "Hierarchical language models for expert finding in enterprise corpora." International Journal on Artificial Intelligence Tools 17.01, 2008, pp.5-18.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Yin, Xiaoxin, and Wenzhao Tan. "Semi-supervised truth discovery." Proceedings of the 20th international conference on World wide web. ACM, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Yin, Xiaoxin, Jiawei Han, and Philip S. Yu. "Truth discovery with multiple conflicting information providers on the web." Knowledge and Data Engineering, IEEE Transactions on 20.6, 2008, pp.796-808.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Dong, Xin Luna, Laure Berti-Equille, and Divesh Srivastava. "Truth discovery and copying detection in a dynamic world." Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment 2.1, 2009, pp.562-573.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Morris, Meredith Ringel, et al. "Tweeting is believing?: understanding microblog credibility perceptions." Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. ACM, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Flanagin, Andrew J., and Miriam J. Metzger. "Internet use in the contemporary media environment." Human communication research 27.1 (2001): 153--181.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Flanagin, Andrew J., and Miriam J. Metzger. "Perceptions of Internet information credibility." Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 77.3, 2000, pp.515-540.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Chi, Michelene TH, Paul J. Feltovich, and Robert Glaser. "Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices." Cognitive science 5.2, 1981, pp.121-152.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Wiener, Joshua L., and John C. Mowen. "Source credibility: on the independent effects of trust and expertise." Advances in consumer research 13.1, 1986, pp.306-310.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Gaziano, Cecilie, and Kristin McGrath. "Measuring the concept of credibility." Journalism Quarterly 63.3, 1986, pp.451-462.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Lehmann, Janette, et al. "Finding news curators in twitter." WWW/SNOW workshop. 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Castillo, Carlos, Marcelo Mendoza, and Barbara Poblete. "Information credibility on twitter." Proceedings of the 20th international conference on World wide web. ACM, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

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
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Conferences
    ASONAM '19: Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining
    August 2019
    1228 pages
    ISBN:9781450368681
    DOI:10.1145/3341161

    Copyright © 2019 ACM

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part 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 components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 15 January 2020

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article

    Acceptance Rates

    ASONAM '19 Paper Acceptance Rate41of286submissions,14%Overall Acceptance Rate116of549submissions,21%

    Upcoming Conference

    KDD '24
  • Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)23
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)2

    Other Metrics

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader