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.

In the age of social media and generative AI, the ability to automatically assess the credibility of online content has become increasingly critical, complementing traditional approaches to false information detection. Credibility assessment relies on aggregating diverse credibility signals—small units of information, such as content subjectivity, bias or a presence of persuasion techniques—into a final credibility label/score. However, current research in automatic credibility assessment and credibility signals detection remains highly fragmented, with many signals studied in isolation and lacking integration. Notably, there is a scarcity of approaches that detect and aggregate multiple credibility signals simultaneously. These challenges are further exacerbated by the absence of a comprehensive and up-to-date overview of research works that connects these research efforts under a common framework and identifies shared trends, challenges and open problems. In this survey, we address this gap by presenting a systematic and comprehensive literature review of 175 research papers, focusing on textual credibility signals within the field of Natural Language Processing (NLP), which undergoes a rapid transformation due to advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs). While positioning the NLP research into the broader multidisciplinary landscape, we examine both automatic credibility assessment methods as well as the detection of nine categories of credibility signals. We provide an in-depth analysis of three key categories: (1) factuality, subjectivity and bias, (2) persuasion techniques and logical fallacies and (3) check-worthy and fact-checked claims. In addition to summarising existing methods, datasets and tools, we outline future research direction and emerging opportunities, with particular attention to evolving challenges posed by generative AI.

This work introduces EUvsDisinfo, a multilingual dataset of disinformation articles originating from pro-Kremlin outlets, along with trustworthy articles from credible / less biased sources. It is sourced directly from the debunk articles written by experts leading the EUvsDisinfo project. Our dataset is the largest to-date resource in terms of the overall number of articles and distinct languages. It also provides the largest topical and temporal coverage. Using this dataset, we investigate the dissemination of pro-Kremlin disinformation across different languages, uncovering language-specific patterns targeting certain disinformation topics. We further analyse the evolution of topic distribution over an eight-year period, noting a significant surge in disinformation content before the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Lastly, we demonstrate the dataset's applicability in training models to effectively distinguish between disinformation and trustworthy content in multilingual settings.