Truth with a Twist: The Rhetoric of Persuasion in Professional vs. Community-Authored Fact-Checks

TL;DR

This study compares persuasion techniques in crowd- versus professionally-authored fact-checks, revealing systematic rhetorical differences and how crowds evaluate persuasive language, challenging assumptions about subjective wording in community debunks.

Contribution

It provides the first large-scale analysis of persuasion techniques across different fact-checking ecosystems, highlighting differences in rhetorical strategies and crowd evaluation.

Findings

No significant difference in persuasion techniques between community and professional fact-checks.

Systematic rhetorical differences reflect institutional norms and topical coverage.

Crowd ratings are slightly higher for notes with more persuasive elements but effectively penalize problematic rhetoric.

Abstract

This study presents the first large-scale comparison of persuasion techniques present in crowd- versus professionally-written debunks. Using extensive datasets from Community Notes (CNs), EUvsDisinfo, and the Database of Known Fakes (DBKF), we quantify the prevalence and types of persuasion techniques across these fact-checking ecosystems. Contrary to prior hypothesis that community-produced debunks rely more heavily on subjective or persuasive wording, we find no evidence that CNs contain a higher average number of persuasion techniques than professional fact-checks. We additionally identify systematic rhetorical differences between CNs and professional debunking efforts, reflecting differences in institutional norms and topical coverage. Finally, we examine how the crowd evaluates persuasive language in CNs and show that, although notes with more persuasive elements receive slightly higher overall helpfulness ratings, crowd raters are effective at penalising the use of particular problematic rhetorical means