WhatTheWikiFact: Fact-Checking Claims Against Wikipedia
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2105.00826v1
- Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 12:23:56 GMT
- Title: WhatTheWikiFact: Fact-Checking Claims Against Wikipedia
- Authors: Anton Chernyavskiy, Dmitry Ilvovsky, Preslav Nakov
- Abstract summary: We present WhatTheWikiFact, a system for automatic claim verification using Wikipedia.
The system predicts the veracity of an input claim, and it further shows the evidence it has retrieved as part of the verification process.
- Score: 17.36054090232896
- License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
- Abstract: The rise of Internet has made it a major source of information.
Unfortunately, not all information online is true, and thus a number of
fact-checking initiatives have been launched, both manual and automatic. Here,
we present our contribution in this regard: WhatTheWikiFact, a system for
automatic claim verification using Wikipedia. The system predicts the veracity
of an input claim, and it further shows the evidence it has retrieved as part
of the verification process. It shows confidence scores and a list of relevant
Wikipedia articles, together with detailed information about each article,
including the phrase used to retrieve it, the most relevant sentences it
contains, and their stances with respect to the input claim, with associated
probabilities.
Related papers
- Give Me More Details: Improving Fact-Checking with Latent Retrieval [58.706972228039604]
Evidence plays a crucial role in automated fact-checking.
Existing fact-checking systems either assume the evidence sentences are given or use the search snippets returned by the search engine.
We propose to incorporate full text from source documents as evidence and introduce two enriched datasets.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-05-25T15:01:19Z) - FACTIFY-5WQA: 5W Aspect-based Fact Verification through Question
Answering [3.0401523614135333]
A human fact-checker generally follows several logical steps to verify a verisimilitude claim.
It is necessary to have an aspect-based (delineating which part(s) are true and which are false) explainable system.
In this paper, we propose a 5W framework for question-answer-based fact explainability.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-05-07T16:52:21Z) - Missing Counter-Evidence Renders NLP Fact-Checking Unrealistic for
Misinformation [67.69725605939315]
Misinformation emerges in times of uncertainty when credible information is limited.
This is challenging for NLP-based fact-checking as it relies on counter-evidence, which may not yet be available.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-10-25T09:40:48Z) - Improving Wikipedia Verifiability with AI [116.69749668874493]
We develop a neural network based system, called Side, to identify Wikipedia citations that are unlikely to support their claims.
Our first citation recommendation collects over 60% more preferences than existing Wikipedia citations for the same top 10% most likely unverifiable claims.
Our results indicate that an AI-based system could be used, in tandem with humans, to improve the verifiability of Wikipedia.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-07-08T15:23:29Z) - Generating Literal and Implied Subquestions to Fact-check Complex Claims [64.81832149826035]
We focus on decomposing a complex claim into a comprehensive set of yes-no subquestions whose answers influence the veracity of the claim.
We present ClaimDecomp, a dataset of decompositions for over 1000 claims.
We show that these subquestions can help identify relevant evidence to fact-check the full claim and derive the veracity through their answers.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-05-14T00:40:57Z) - Synthetic Disinformation Attacks on Automated Fact Verification Systems [53.011635547834025]
We explore the sensitivity of automated fact-checkers to synthetic adversarial evidence in two simulated settings.
We show that these systems suffer significant performance drops against these attacks.
We discuss the growing threat of modern NLG systems as generators of disinformation.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-02-18T19:01:01Z) - Assessing Effectiveness of Using Internal Signals for Check-Worthy Claim
Identification in Unlabeled Data for Automated Fact-Checking [6.193231258199234]
This paper explores methodology to identify check-worthy claim sentences from fake news articles.
We leverage two internal supervisory signals - headline and the abstractive summary - to rank the sentences.
We show that while the headline has more gisting similarity with how a fact-checking website writes a claim, the summary-based pipeline is the most promising for an end-to-end fact-checking system.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-11-02T16:17:20Z) - DialFact: A Benchmark for Fact-Checking in Dialogue [56.63709206232572]
We construct DialFact, a benchmark dataset of 22,245 annotated conversational claims, paired with pieces of evidence from Wikipedia.
We find that existing fact-checking models trained on non-dialogue data like FEVER fail to perform well on our task.
We propose a simple yet data-efficient solution to effectively improve fact-checking performance in dialogue.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-10-15T17:34:35Z) - The Role of Context in Detecting Previously Fact-Checked Claims [27.076320857009655]
We focus on claims made in a political debate, where context really matters.
We study the impact of modeling the context of the claim both on the source side, as well as on the target side, in the fact-checking explanation document.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-04-15T12:39:37Z) - Quantifying Engagement with Citations on Wikipedia [13.703047949952852]
One in 300 page views results in a reference click.
Clicks occur more frequently on shorter pages and on pages of lower quality.
Recent content, open access sources and references about life events are particularly popular.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2020-01-23T15:52:36Z)
This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.
This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.