Email sent!
There has been an error, please check the information you entered and try again.
Skip to content

Teach Global Impact in CSP | Resources and Strategies

Lesson plans, classroom materials, and teaching strategies on the Global Impact of Computing. Portal to our collection of creative, engaging resources to support teachers of AP Computer Science Principles, and others who want to bring social impact into high school CS classrooms.

  • RESOURCES
    • Overview
    • Resources Database
    • TGI’s Materials
    • Discussion Bank
  • STRATEGIES
  • NEWS TO USE
  • FORUM
    • Forum
      (home & search)
    • Login
      (to comment)
  • ABOUT

Finding Credibility Clues on Twitter

Home › Forums › Computing in the News › Finding Credibility Clues on Twitter

Tagged: 3 Data & Info, 7.1.1 Interaction and cognition, 7.1.1C Social media, 7.1.1H Social sharing, 7.1.1N Breadth of change, 7.3.1 Benefits and harm, 7.3.1A Law and ethics, 7.5.2 Evaluate sources, 7.5.2A Credibility

  • This topic has 1 reply, 2 voices, and was last updated 4 years ago by Julia Bernd.
Login Register
Viewing 1 reply thread
  • Author
    Posts
    • February 6, 2017 at 3:10 am #2242
      Michael Morguarge
      Participant

      Georgia Tech, 1/26/2017
      Georgia Tech Researchers have created an early prototype system that uses a language model to predict the perceived credibility of social media messages, for example based on key mood words. This prototype system could lead to an application to help users identify credible information on social media.

      [See the full post at: Finding Credibility Clues on Twitter]

    • February 18, 2017 at 2:04 am #2478
      Julia Bernd
      Admin

      One thing that struck me about this research — at least as it was described in the article — is that the researchers were collapsing a couple different dimensions of credibility in a way that may have affected their results, or at least their interpretation.

      For example, they pointed out that lower perceived credibility (by their measure) correlates with more retweeting — but they also pointed out that lower perceived credibility correlates with more hedges. Given that the rating scale is accuracy, people may judge the information contained in a hedged tweet as less likely to be accurate because the tweeter has already introduced uncertainty — but they may be more likely to retweet it, because of a higher perception of the credibility of the source. (Exactly because that source doesn’t seem to be overstating their claims.)

      This is only one possible interpretation — and a rather optimistic one at that — but it illustrates an important point: If you’re going to try to do experiments on humans, it’s important to be careful about exactly what question you ask, and to make sure you interpret your results in the light of how that question was worded.

      Rather a tangent for a CS class, but it’s a point that computer scientists often miss, especially if they aren’t co-authoring with non-computer scientists. So, this is a plug for interdisciplinary collaboration! 🙂

  • Author
    Posts
Login Register
Viewing 1 reply thread
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Log In
Teach Global Impact content is licensed by the International Computer Science Institute under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License (CC BY-NC-SA).
  • RESOURCES
    • Overview
    • Resources Database
    • TGI’s Materials
    • Discussion Bank
  • STRATEGIES
  • NEWS TO USE
  • FORUM
    • Forum
      (home & search)
    • Login
      (to comment)
  • ABOUT

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!