Analysing How People Orient to and Spread Rumours in Social Media by Looking at Conversational Threads

As breaking news unfolds people increasingly rely on social media to stay abreast of the latest updates. The use of social media in such situations comes with the caveat that new information being released piecemeal may encourage rumours, many of which remain unverified long after their point of release. Little is known, however, about the dynamics of the life cycle of a social media rumour. In this paper we present a methodology that has enabled us to collect, identify and annotate a dataset of 330 rumour threads (4,842 tweets) associated with 9 newsworthy events. We analyse this dataset to understand how users spread, support, or deny rumours that are later proven true or false, by distinguishing two levels of status in a rumour life cycle i.e., before and after its veracity status is resolved. The identification of rumours associated with each event, as well as the tweet that resolved each rumour as true or false, was performed by journalist members of the research team who tracked the events in real time. Our study shows that rumours that are ultimately proven true tend to be resolved faster than those that turn out to be false. Whilst one can readily see users denying rumours once they have been debunked, users appear to be less capable of distinguishing true from false rumours when their veracity remains in question. In fact, we show that the prevalent tendency for users is to support every unverified rumour. We also analyse the role of different types of users, finding that highly reputable users such as news organisations endeavour to post well-grounded statements, which appear to be certain and accompanied by evidence. Nevertheless, these often prove to be unverified pieces of information that give rise to false rumours. Our study reinforces the need for developing robust machine learning techniques that can provide assistance in real time for assessing the veracity of rumours. The findings of our study provide useful insights for achieving this aim.

[1]  Ingmar Weber,et al.  Get Back! You Don't Know Me Like That: The Social Mediation of Fact Checking Interventions in Twitter Conversations , 2014, ICWSM.

[2]  Kate Starbird,et al.  Rumors, False Flags, and Digital Vigilantes: Misinformation on Twitter after the 2013 Boston Marathon Bombing , 2014 .

[3]  Heng Ji,et al.  Tweet, but verify: epistemic study of information verification on Twitter , 2013, Social Network Analysis and Mining.

[4]  J. Prasad,et al.  THE PSYCHOLOGY OF RUMOUR: A STUDY RELATING TO THE GREAT INDIAN EARTHQUAKE OF 1934 , 1935 .

[5]  Weili Wu,et al.  Maximizing rumor containment in social networks with constrained time , 2014, Social Network Analysis and Mining.

[6]  Arkaitz Zubiaga,et al.  Crowdsourcing the Annotation of Rumourous Conversations in Social Media , 2015, WWW.

[7]  Ralph L. Rosnow,et al.  Who Hears What from Whom and with What Effect , 1980 .

[8]  Kalina Bontcheva,et al.  Classifying Tweet Level Judgements of Rumours in Social Media , 2015, EMNLP.

[9]  R. Procter,et al.  Reading the riots on Twitter: methodological innovation for the analysis of big data , 2013 .

[10]  Noah A. Smith,et al.  Proceedings of EMNLP , 2007 .

[11]  Hosung Park,et al.  What is Twitter, a social network or a news media? , 2010, WWW '10.

[12]  Prashant Bordia,et al.  Studying verbal interaction on the Internet: The case of rumor transmission research , 1996 .

[13]  Barbara Poblete,et al.  Predicting information credibility in time-sensitive social media , 2013, Internet Res..

[14]  Kalina Bontcheva,et al.  Pheme: Veracity in Digital Social Networks , 2014, UMAP Workshops.

[15]  Adam Michael Edwards,et al.  Enabling social media research through citizen social science , 2013 .

[16]  Dragomir R. Radev,et al.  Rumor has it: Identifying Misinformation in Microblogs , 2011, EMNLP.

[17]  Zubiaga Arkaitz,et al.  PHEME rumour scheme dataset: journalism use case , 2016 .

[18]  Harvey Sacks,et al.  Lectures on Conversation , 1995 .

[19]  Donald B. Rubin,et al.  Rumor and Gossip Research , 2005 .

[20]  P. Bordia,et al.  Rumor, Gossip and Urban Legends , 2007 .

[21]  Ralph Beliveau,et al.  News Talk: Investigating the Language of Journalism , 2011 .

[22]  James Pustejovsky,et al.  FactBank: a corpus annotated with event factuality , 2009, Lang. Resour. Evaluation.

[23]  Misako Takayasu,et al.  Rumor Diffusion and Convergence during the 3.11 Earthquake: A Twitter Case Study , 2015, PloS one.

[24]  Arkaitz Zubiaga,et al.  Towards Detecting Rumours in Social Media , 2015, AAAI Workshop: AI for Cities.

[25]  P. Donovan How Idle is Idle Talk? One Hundred Years of Rumor Research , 2007 .

[26]  Arkaitz Zubiaga,et al.  Microblog Analysis as a Programme of Work , 2015, ArXiv.

[27]  F. Wilcoxon Individual Comparisons by Ranking Methods , 1945 .

[28]  T. J. Scanlon,et al.  Post-Disaster Rumor Chains - Case-Study , 1977 .

[29]  Justin Cheng,et al.  Rumor Cascades , 2014, ICWSM.

[30]  R. H. Knapp,et al.  A PSYCHOLOGY OF RUMOR , 1944 .

[31]  Rizal Setya Perdana What is Twitter , 2013 .

[32]  D. Sinha,et al.  BEHAVIOUR IN A CATASTROPHIC SITUATION: A PSYCHOLOGICAL STUDY OF REPORTS AND RUMOURS , 1952 .

[33]  Leo Postman,et al.  AN ANALYSIS OF RUMOR , 1946 .

[34]  Kevin W. Saunders The Mythic Difficulty in Proving a Negative , 1985 .