Fact Checking Task

Context:
- Input: a Linguistic Claim.
  - optiona: a Claim Source Reputation.
- output: a Fact Veracity Rating.
- It can range from being Manual Fact Checking to being Automated Fact Checking.
- It can require Verdict Justification (for correctness checking) which can be based on very little data (e.g. one Wikipedia reference and on NYT reference).
Example(s):
- as performed by PolitiFact.com, FactCheck.org, …
- as performed by a "truth-o-meter".
- …
Counter-Example(s):
- Plausability Check (e.g. of "Brexit would put 3M jobs at risk").
See: Lie, Misinformation, Disinformation.

References

(Wikipedia, 2017) ⇒ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/fact_checking Retrieved:2017-12-9.
- Fact checking is the act of checking factual assertions in non-fictional text in order to determine the veracity and correctness of the factual statements in the text. This may be done either before (ante hoc) or after (post hoc) the text has been published or otherwise disseminated.
  Ante hoc fact-checking (fact checking before dissemination) aims to remove errors and allow text to proceed to dissemination (or to rejection if it fails confirmations or other criteria). Post hoc fact-checking is most often followed by a written report of inaccuracies, sometimes with a visual metric from the checking organization (e.g., Pinocchios from The Washington Post Fact Checker, or TRUTH-O-METER ratings from PolitiFact). Several organizations are devoted to post hoc fact-checking, such as FactCheck.org and PolitiFact.
  Research on the impact of fact-checking is relatively recent but the existing research suggests that fact-checking does indeed correct misperceptions among citizens, as well as discouraging politicians from spreading misinformation.

(Nyhan & Reifler, 2015) ⇒ Brendan Nyhan, and Jason Reifler. (2015). “The Effect of Fact‐Checking on Elites: A Field Experiment on US State Legislators.” American Journal of Political Science 59, no. 3
- ABSTRACT: Does external monitoring improve democratic performance? Fact-checking has come to play an increasingly important role in political coverage in the United States, but some research suggests it may be ineffective at reducing public misperceptions about controversial issues. However, fact-checking might instead help improve political discourse by increasing the reputational costs or risks of spreading misinformation for political elites. To evaluate this deterrent hypothesis, we conducted a field experiment on a diverse group of state legislators from nine U.S. states in the months before the November 2012 election. In the experiment, a randomly assigned subset of state legislators was sent a series of letters about the risks to their reputation and electoral security if they were caught making questionable statements. The legislators who were sent these letters were substantially less likely to receive a negative fact-checking rating or to have their accuracy questioned publicly, suggesting that fact-checking can reduce inaccuracy when it poses a salient threat.