Integrating on-demand fact-checking with public dialogue

Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, CSCW

Volumn , Issue , 2014, Pages 1188-1199

  Kriplean, Travis ^a,d   Bonnar, Caitlin ^a   Borning, Alan ^a   Kinney, Bo ^b   Gill, Brian ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^b Seattle Public Library   (United States)

^c SEATTLE PACIFIC UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d Invisible College LLC   (United States)

Author keywords

Civic engagement; Deliberation; Fact checking; Libraries; Value Sensitive Design

Indexed keywords

DESIGN; INTERACTIVE COMPUTER SYSTEMS; LIBRARIES;

AUTHORITATIVE INFORMATION; BROAD SPECTRUM; CIVIC ENGAGEMENT; DELIBERATION; DESIGN SPACES; FACT-CHECKING; SOCIOTECHNICAL SYSTEMS; VALUE SENSITIVE DESIGN;

COMPUTER SUPPORTED COOPERATIVE WORK;

EID: 84898978320     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/2531602.2531677     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (49)

1. American Library Association. Code of ethics of the American Library Association, 2008. Available at http: //www.ala.org/ advocacy/proethics/ codeofethics/codeethics.
2. American Library Association. Reference and user services association guidelines, 2013. Available at http: //www.ala.org/rusa/resources/guidelines.
3. Anderson, C. Deliberative, agonistic, and algorithmic audiences. Int. J. of Communication 5 (2011).
4. Benkler, Y. The Wealth of Networks. Yale University Press, 2006.
5. Borning, A., Friedman, B., Davis, J., and Lin, P. Informing public deliberation: Value sensitive design of indicators for a large-scale urban simulation. In Proc. 9th European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (Paris, Sept. 2005).
6. Borning, A., and Muller, M. Next steps for value sensitive design. In CHI (2012).
7. Castillo, C., Mendoza, M., and Poblete, B. Information credibility on twitter. In Proceedings of the 20th international conference on World wide web, WWW '11, ACM (New York, NY, USA, 2011), 675-684.
8. Dahlberg, L. Democracy via cyberspace. New Media &Society 3, 2 (2001).
9. Denning, P. J., Horning, J., Parnas, D. L., and Weinstein, L. Wikipedia risks. Communications of the ACM 48, 12 (2005), 152.
10. Dobbs, M. The rise of political fact-checking: How Reagan inspired a journalistic movement: A reporter's eye view. New America Foundation, Feb. 2012. Available at http: //newamerica.net/ sites/newamerica.net/files/policydocs/The- Rise- of-Political-Fact-checking.pdf.pdf.
11. Dryzek, J. Liberals, Critics, Contestations. Oxford Press, 2002.
12. Ennals, R., Trushkowsky, B., and Agosta, J. M. Highlighting disputed claims on the web. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on World Wide Web, WWW '10, ACM (New York, NY, USA, 2010), 341-350.
13. Faridani, S., Bitton, E., Ryokai, K., and Goldberg, K. OpinionSpace: A scalable tool for browsing online comments. In CHI (2010).
14. Fishkin, J. Strategies of public consultation. Integrated Assessment 6, 2 (2006).
15. Fraser, N. A contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. Social Text, 25/26 (1990).
16. Freelon, D. Analyzing online political discussion using three models of democratic communication. New Media &Society 12, 7 (2010).
17. Freelon, D., Kriplean, T., Morgan, J., Bennett, W. L., and Borning, A. Facilitating diverse political engagement with the living voters guide. Journal of Information Technology &Politics 9, 3 (2012), 279-297.
18. Friedman, B., Kahn Jr., P. H., and Borning, A. Value Sensitive Design and information systems: Three case studies. In Human-Computer Interaction and Management Information Systems: Foundations. M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, NY, 2006.
19. Garrett, R. K., and Weeks, B. The promise and peril of real-time corrections to political misperceptions. In CSCW (2013).
20. Gastil, J. Political Communication and Deliberation. Sage, 2008.
21. Guzmán, M. Seattle library fact check experiment risky, but valuable. Seattle Times (Oct. 2012). See https: //wash.livingvotersguide.org/ home/media for this and other links to press coverage.
22. Habermas, J. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. MIT Press, 1991.
23. Huh, J., Patel, R., and Pratt, W. Tackling dilemmas in supporting "the whole person" in online patient communities. In CHI (2012).
24. Isenmann, S., et al. IBIS: a convincing concept . . . but a lousy instrument? In DIS (1997).
25. Jaeger, P. T., and Fleischmann, K. Public libraries, values, trust, and e-government. Information Technology and Libraries 26, 4 (2007), 34-43.
26. Kahn Jr., P. H. The Human Relationship with Nature: Development and culture. MIT Press, 1999, ch. 5: Structural-developmental methods, 77-93.
27. Kittur, A., Suh, B., and Chi, E. H. Can you ever trust a wiki?: Impacting perceived trustworthiness in Wikipedia. In CSCW (2008).
28. Kriplean, T. Encouraging Reflective Discussion on the Web. PhD thesis, Dept. of Computer Science &Engineering, University of Washington, Dec. 2011.
29. Kriplean, T., Morgan, J., Freelon, D., Borning, A., and Bennett, W. L. Supporting reflective public thought with ConsiderIt. In CSCW (2012).
30. Kriplean, T., Toomim, M., Morgan, J., Borning, A., and Ko, A. Is this what you meant? promoting listening on the web with reflect. In CHI (2012).
31. Kuklinski, J. H., Quirk, P. J., Jerit, J., Schwieder, D., and Rich, R. F. Misinformation and the currency of democratic citizenship. Journal of Politics 62, 3 (2000), 790-816.
32. Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U., Seifert, C., Schwarz, N., and Cook, J. Misinformation and its correction: Continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest 13 (2012), 106-131.
33. Lord, C. G., Ross, L., and Lepper, M. R. Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37, 11 (1979), 2098-2109.
34. MacCoun, R. J., and Paletz, S. Citizens' perceptions of ideological bias in research on public policy controversies. Political Psychology 30, 1 (2009), 43-65.
35. MacKuen, M., et al. Resolute partisanship or reflective deliberation. Am. J. of Pol. Sci. 54, 2 (2010).
36. Mutz, D. Hearing the Other Side: Deliberative versus Participatory Democracy. Cambridge, 2006.
37. Nyhan, B., and Reifler, J. When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behavior 32, 2 (June 2010), 303-330.
38. Park, S., et al. Newscube: Delivering multiple aspects of news to mitigate media bias. In CHI (2009).
39. Price, V., Nir, L., and Cappella, J. N. Normative and informational influences in online political discussions. Communication Theory 16, 1 (Feb. 2006), 47-74.
40. Shipman, F., et al. Formality considered harmful. JCSCW 8, 4 (1999).
41. Shum, S. Visualizing Argumentation. Springer, 2003.
42. Shum, S. Cohere: Towards web 2.0 argumentation. In COMMA (2008).
43. Stvilia, B., Twidale, M. B., Smith, L. C., and Gasser, L. Information quality work organization in Wikipedia. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 59, 6 (2008), 983-1001.
44. Sukumaran, A., et al. Normative influences on thoughtful online participation. In CHI (2011).
45. Sunstein, C. Republic.com 2.0. Princeton Univ. Press, 2009.
46. Taber, C. S., and Lodge, M. Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science 50, 3 (July 2006), 755-769.
47. Thompson, D. Deliberative democratic theory and empirical political science. Annual Review of Political Science 11 (2008).
48. Wahl-Jorgensen, K. Letters to the editor as a forum for public deliberation. Crit. Stud. in Media Comm. 18, 3 (2001).
49. Zickuhr, K., Rainie, L., and Purcell, K. Library Services in the Digital Age. Pew Internet &American Life Project, 2013. Available at http: //libraries.pewinternet.org/2013/01/22/ library-services/.