IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0348291.html

Trust the crowd: Crowdsourced fact-checking is as effective at reducing confidence in misinformation as expert fact-checking

Author

Listed:
  • Cindy Phan Vu
  • Lauren L Saling

Abstract

The rapid spread of misinformation on social media has created significant challenges for expert fact-checking initiatives to counter in a timely and effective manner. Misinformation undermines behaviour and decision-making in many spheres including health and political domains. X (formerly known as ‘Twitter’) utilises crowdsourced fact-checking (termed ‘Community Notes’) to manage the high volume of and engagement with online misinformation. Community Notes have also been introduced to mitigate perceived partisanship and bias of expert fact-checkers. The present study recruited 102 participants to investigate whether expert or crowdsourced fact-checks on X are more effective at reducing belief in misinformation and engagement with misinformation. Participants were randomly allocated into either an expert or crowdsourced fact-checking condition. Confidence in the veracity of misinformation and willingness to retweet were measured, before and after exposure to fact-checks. It was found that both crowdsourced and expert fact-checks reduced confidence in misinformation and willingness to retweet the information. The results demonstrate the efficacy of crowdsourced fact-checking, a fact-checking variant that is rapidly gaining popularity. Given this, the adoption of crowdsourced fact-checking by other social media platforms warrants consideration.

Suggested Citation

  • Cindy Phan Vu & Lauren L Saling, 2026. "Trust the crowd: Crowdsourced fact-checking is as effective at reducing confidence in misinformation as expert fact-checking," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 21(5), pages 1-11, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0348291
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0348291
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0348291
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0348291&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0348291?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0348291. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.