Request a Note: How the Request Function Shapes X's Community Notes System
Yuwei Chuai, Shuning Zhang, Ziming Wang, Xin Yi, Mohsen Mosleh, Gabriele Lenzini
Abstract
X's Community Notes is a crowdsourced fact-checking system. To improve its scalability, X introduced ``Request Community Note'' feature, enabling users to solicit fact-checks from contributors on specific posts. Yet, its implications for the system -- what gets checked, by whom, and with what quality -- remain unclear. Using 98,685 requested posts and their associated notes, we evaluate how requests shape the Community Notes system. We find that requested posts with higher GPT-estimated misleadingness and from authors with greater misinformation exposure are more likely to receive notes. Conversely, requested political posts (vs. non-political) are less likely to receive notes. We also observe partisan asymmetries: posts from Republicans are more likely to receive notes than those from Democrats. Although only 12% of requested posts receive request-fostered notes from top contributors, these notes are rated as more helpful and less polarized than others, partly reflecting top contributors' selective fact-checking of misleading posts. Our findings highlight both the limitations and promise of requests for scaling high-quality community-based fact-checking.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 60feb453-3d0d-4874-b572-bba4206adfffCited by top-tier papers1
Ask how each one uses itBuilds on13
- Can Large Language Models Be an Alternative to Human Evaluations?David Cheng-Han Chiang, Hung-yi LeeACL 2023 · 254 citations
- Birds of a feather don't fact-check each other: Partisanship and the evaluation of news in Twitter's Birdwatch crowdsourced fact-checking programJennifer Allen, Cameron Martel, David G. RandCHI 2022 · 104 citations
- Investigating Differences in Crowdsourced News Credibility Assessment: Raters, Tasks, and Expert CriteriaMd Momen Bhuiyan, Amy X. Zhang, Connie Moon Sehat, Tanushree MitraCSCW 2020 · 70 citations
- Will the Crowd Game the Algorithm?: Using Layperson Judgments to Combat Misinformation on Social Media by Downranking Distrusted SourcesZiv Epstein, Gordon Pennycook, David G. RandCHI 2020 · 68 citations
- Did the Roll-Out of Community Notes Reduce Engagement With Misinformation on X/Twitter?Yuwei Chuai, Haoye Tian, Nicolas Pröllochs, Gabriele LenziniCSCW 2024 · 62 citations
Related papers
- Gaming Consensus: Coordinated Manipulation in Crowdsourced Fact-CheckingNikil Selvam, Jay Baxter, Sophie Hilgard, Brad Miller et al.ICML 2026
- Community Fact-Checks Trigger Moral Outrage in Replies to Misleading Posts on Social MediaYuwei Chuai, Anastasia Sergeeva, Gabriele Lenzini, Nicolas PröllochsCHI 2025 · 5 citations
- Beyond the Crowd: LLM-Augmented Community Notes for Governing Health MisinformationJiaying Wu, Zihang Fu, Haonan Wang, Fanxiao Li et al.ACL 2026 · 17 citations
- Supernotes: Driving Consensus in Crowd-Sourced Fact-CheckingSoham De, Michiel A. Bakker, Jay Baxter, Martin SaveskiWWW 2025 · 31 citations
- Diffusion of Community Fact-Checked Misinformation on TwitterChiara Patricia Drolsbach, Nicolas PröllochsCSCW 2023 · 47 citations
