Misinformation is a global challenge, but successful mitigations must come from the communities affected and not be imposed by external entities. Co·Insights is a multi-year NSF-funded initiative building capacity to respond to misinformation and harmful narratives in Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) communities, based on a deep involvement with grassroots organizations and a co-construction of tools grounded on community needs. Co·Insights' unique cross-sectoral, cross-disciplinary collaboration is a convergence of information retrieval, computational social science, and ethnographic inquiry with a unique platform that enables community organizations, fact-checkers, and academics to work together to respond effectively to harmful content targeting communities. In this SIRIP talk designed for a technical audience, we will share lessons learned from the first 2.5 years of Co·Insights, and how we are bridging the academic--praxis divide by integrating state-of-the-art research developments into large-scale deployed systems. Topics covered will include: the challenges and joys of collaborating across disciplinary and sectoral boundaries; community-driven approaches that utilize information retrieval techniques such as claim matching in concert with emerging best practices in misinformation mitigation; open problems we have encountered in the space; and future directions we find promising. Co·Insights is led by Meedan, a global non-profit providing award-winning software solutions to mitigate misinformation; and in partnership with AAPI community organizations and several academic institutions.

Diaspora communities are disproportionately impacted by off-the-radar misinformation and often neglected by mainstream fact-checking efforts, creating a critical need to scale-up efforts of nascent fact-checking initiatives. In this paper we present SynDy, a framework for Synthetic Dynamic Dataset Generation to leverage the capabilities of the largest frontier Large Language Models (LLMs) to train local, specialized language models. To the best of our knowledge, SynDy is the first paper utilizing LLMs to create fine-grained synthetic labels for tasks of direct relevance to misinformation mitigation, namely Claim Matching, Topical Clustering, and Claim Relationship Classification. SynDy utilizes LLMs and social media queries to automatically generate distantly-supervised, topically-focused datasets with synthetic labels on these three tasks, providing essential tools to scale up human-led fact-checking at a fraction of the cost of human-annotated data. Training on SynDy's generated labels shows improvement over a standard baseline and is not significantly worse compared to training on human labels (which may be infeasible to acquire). SynDy is being integrated into Meedan's chatbot tiplines that are used by over 50 organizations, serve over 230K users annually, and automatically distribute human-written fact-checks via messaging apps such as WhatsApp. SynDy will also be integrated into our deployed Co-Insights toolkit, enabling low-resource organizations to launch tiplines for their communities. Finally, we envision SynDy enabling additional fact-checking tools such as matching new misinformation claims to high-quality explainers on common misinformation topics.

Journalists, fact-checkers, academics, and community media are overwhelmed in their attempts to support communities suffering from gender-, race- and ethnicity-targeted information ecosystem threats, including but not limited to misinformation, hate speech, weaponized controversy and online-to-offline harassment. Yet, for a plethora of reasons, minoritized groups are underserved by current approaches to combat such threats. In this panel, we will present and discuss the challenges and open problems facing such communities and the researchers hoping to serve them. We will also discuss the current state-of-the-art as well as the most promising future directions, both within IR specifically, across Computer Science more broadly, as well as that requiring transdisciplinary and cross-sectoral collaborations. The panel will attract both IR practitioners and researchers and include at least one panelist outside of IR, with unique expertise in this space.

Healthy online discourse is becoming less and less accessible beneath the growing noise of controversy, mis- and dis-information, and toxic speech. While IR is crucial in detecting harmful speech, researchers must work across disciplines to develop interventions, and partner with industry to deploy them rapidly and effectively. In this position paper, we argue that both detecting online information disorders and deploying novel, real-world content moderation tools is crucial in promoting empathy in social networks, and maintaining free expression and discourse. We detail our insights in studying different social networks such as Parler and Reddit. Finally, we discuss the joys and challenges as a lab-grown startup working with both academia and other industrial partners in finding a path toward a better, more trustworthy online ecosystem.

The journalism industry has undergone a revolution in the past decade, leading to new opportunities as well as challenges. News consumption, production and delivery have all been affected and transformed by technology Readers require new mechanisms to cope with the vast volume of information in order to be informed about news events. Reporters have begun to use natural language processing (NLP) and (IR) techniques for investigative work. Publishers and aggregators are seeking new business models, and new ways to reach and retain their audience. A shift in business models has led to a gradual shift in styles of journalism in attempts to increase page views; and, far more concerning, to real mis- and dis-information, alongside allegations of "fake news" threatening the journalistic freedom and integrity of legitimate news outlets. Social media platforms drive viewership, creating filter bubbles and an increasingly polarized readership. News documents have always been a part of research on information access and retrieval methods. Over the last few years, the IR community has increasingly recognized these challenges in journalism and opened a conversation about how we might begin to address them. Evidence of this recognition is the participation in the two previous editions of our NewsIR workshop, held in ECIR 2016 and 2018. One of the most important outcomes of those workshops is an increasing awareness in the community about the changing nature of journalism and the IR challenges it entails. To move yet another step forward, the goal of the third edition of our workshop will be to create a multidisciplinary venue that brings together news experts from both technology and journalism. This would take NewsIR from a European forum targeting mainly IR researchers, into a more inclusive and influential international forum. We hope that this new format will foster further understanding for both news professionals and IR researchers, as well as producing better outcomes for news consumers. We will address the possibilities and challenges that technology offers to the journalists, the challenges that new developments in journalism create for IR researchers, and the complexity of information access tasks for news readers.

Recently, the problem of automated controversy detection has attracted a lot of interest in the information retrieval community. Existing approaches to this problem have set forth a number of detection algorithms, but there has been little effort to model the probability of controversy in a document directly. In this paper, we propose a probabilistic framework to detect controversy on the web, and investigate two models. We first recast a state-of-the-art controversy detection algorithm into a model in our framework. Based on insights from social science research, we also introduce a language modeling approach to this problem.

Concerns over personalization in IR have sparked an interest in detection and analysis of controversial topics. Accurate detection would enable many beneficial applications, such as alerting search users to controversy. Wikipedia's broad coverage and rich metadata offer a valuable resource for this problem. We hypothesize that intensities of controversy among related pages are not independent; thus, we propose a stacked model which exploits the dependencies among related pages. Our approach improves classification of controversial web pages when compared to a model that examines each page in isolation, demonstrating that controversial topics exhibit homophily. Using notions of similarity to construct a subnetwork for collective classification, rather than using the default network present in the relational data, leads to improved classification with wider applications for semi-structured datasets, with the effects most pronounced when a small set of neighbors is used.

Alerting users about controversial search results can encourage critical literacy, promote healthy civic discourse and counteract the "filter bubble" effect. Additionally, presenting information to the user about the different stances or sides of the debate can help her navigate the landscape of search results. Our existing work made strides in the emerging niche of controversy detection and analysis; we propose further work on automatic stance detection.

A useful feature to facilitate critical literacy would alert users when they are reading a controversial web page. This requires solving a binary classification problem: does a given web page discuss a controversial topic? We explore the feasibility of solving the problem by treating it as supervised k-nearest-neighbor classification. Our approach (1) maps a webpage to a set of neighboring Wikipedia articles which were labeled on a controversiality metric; (2) coalesces those labels into an estimate of the webpage's controversiality; and finally (3) converts the estimate to a binary value using a threshold. We demonstrate the applicability of our approach by validating it on a set of webpages drawn from seed queries. We show absolute gains of 22% in F_0.5 on our test set over a sentiment-based approach, highlighting that detecting controversy is more complex than simply detecting opinions.