Trust the crowd: Crowdsourced fact-checking is as effective at reducing confidence in misinformation as expert fact-checking

Cindy Phan Vu and Lauren L Saling

PLOS ONE, 2026, vol. 21, issue 5, 1-11

Abstract: The rapid spread of misinformation on social media has created significant challenges for expert fact-checking initiatives to counter in a timely and effective manner. Misinformation undermines behaviour and decision-making in many spheres including health and political domains. X (formerly known as ‘Twitter’) utilises crowdsourced fact-checking (termed ‘Community Notes’) to manage the high volume of and engagement with online misinformation. Community Notes have also been introduced to mitigate perceived partisanship and bias of expert fact-checkers. The present study recruited 102 participants to investigate whether expert or crowdsourced fact-checks on X are more effective at reducing belief in misinformation and engagement with misinformation. Participants were randomly allocated into either an expert or crowdsourced fact-checking condition. Confidence in the veracity of misinformation and willingness to retweet were measured, before and after exposure to fact-checks. It was found that both crowdsourced and expert fact-checks reduced confidence in misinformation and willingness to retweet the information. The results demonstrate the efficacy of crowdsourced fact-checking, a fact-checking variant that is rapidly gaining popularity. Given this, the adoption of crowdsourced fact-checking by other social media platforms warrants consideration.

Date: 2026
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0348291 (text/html)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id= ... 48291&type=printable (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:plo:pone00:0348291

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0348291

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in PLOS ONE from Public Library of Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by plosone ().