Talk:Community Notes

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Community Notes article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Technology

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology

Internet Low‑importance

	Internet portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Internet culture Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Internet culture To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles
Expand : Pick an article from here or here
Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images
Stubs : All stubs are located here
Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}}
- See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention

Software: Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Community Notes has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 21, 2024	Good article nominee	Not listed
March 1, 2024	Good article nominee	Listed
Current status: Good article

Unsourced quote

The current article states that:

Programmer Vitalik Buterin has described the open-source algorithm as "insanely complicated".

With the quotes indicating that these are his own words and aren't paraphrased, however there is no evidence that he has actually said this. Both associated citations don't directly quote him and his extensively researched blog post on the subject https://archive.is/wMslg which is linked to by the Yahoo Finance article, doesn't even have the word insane in it. As far as I can tell, this is editorialising on the part of the Yahoo Finance writer that has been misattributed to Vitalik.

This claim could be removed entirely, because it's not informative or objective, even if Vitalik did say these words it's too editorial for an encyclopedia article. Andykitchen (talk) 15:50, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to add description of new studies under "Studies" subsection

COI Note: I found this page due to this tweet (https://x.com/_jaybaxter_/status/1910482726630940782), so I request an unbiased editor to review. (Also, per the tweet, there is a small numerical error to correct on the current page: Allen's 2024 study found 97% of COVID-19 vaccine notes in their sample were accurate, not 96%). Proposed additional paragraphs below:

Multiple studies have examined the impact on spread of tweets due to Community Notes, and have found significant reductions in engagements and views on misleading tweets after notes are applied. Slaughter et al. in 2025 found a 46% drop in reposts, 44% drop in likes, 23% drop in replies, and 14% drop in views after a note was attached to a tweet.^[1] Renault et al. found that retweets were reduced by "almost half", and there is an 80% higher probability that a tweet is deleted by its creator.^[2] Chuai et al. also found a similar result: "exposing users to community notes reduced the spread of misleading posts by, on average, 62.0%. Furthermore, community notes increased the odds that users delete their misleading posts by 103.4%". However, they also found that community notes might be too slow (during the period studied: 2021-2023) to intervene in the early (and most viral) stage of the diffusion. ^[3] Community Notes have since become faster after X "re-architected" the community notes scoring system in 2024. ^[4]

Drolsbach et al. found that community notes were perceived as significantly more trustworthy than simple misinformation flags, and also that community notes improved the identification of misleading posts.^[5]. CommunityNotesFan (talk) 17:23, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Preceding unsigned comment is from User:CommunityNotesFan in case others make the same mistake I did, this is not User:CommunityNotesContributor Czarking0 (talk) 16:45, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CommunityNotesFan: Your first three sources here are preprints that have not been published in peer reviewed journals. Given that preprints do not have editorial oversight they are not WP:RS. FN4 is probably RS but it just reporting that the company claims that their notes are faster now. This is maybe noteworthy? I am not sure where this would belong in the article but we would need to be careful with the wording and it probably does not belong in the Studies section. FN5 seems like something that could be included in the studies section. Czarking0 (talk) 16:54, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I added FN5 Czarking0 (talk) 17:06, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing! Appreciate your time taking a look. Didn't realize preprints are not allowed as sources. Re FN5: you wrote

>Another study found that users presented with community notes trusted the fact checking process.

However, I don't think the study made any claims about whether survey participants trusted the fact checking *process*: it just tested whether they found the community notes themselves more or less trustworthy than simple misinformation flags. To quote the abstract: "Across both sides of the political spectrum, community notes were perceived as significantly more trustworthy than simple misinformation flags. Our results further suggest that the higher trustworthiness primarily stemmed from the context provided in community notes (i.e. fact-checking explanations) rather than generally higher trust towards community fact-checkers. Community notes also improved the identification of misleading posts." CommunityNotesFan (talk) 17:49, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edited, better? Czarking0 (talk) 18:01, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to give you the wrong idea so I will just clarify that there is not a blanket ban on pre-prints. There is WP:RS and WP:CONTEXT and some additional guidelines (note WP does not have rules) specific to academic sources that I don't recall off the top of my head. It is my opinion that these guidelines indicate these preprints should not be used in this article at this time. Czarking0 (talk) 18:04, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah got it. Yeah, thanks! CommunityNotesFan (talk) 18:22, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FA?

@CommunityNotesContributor: do you have any thoughts/interest in taking this FA? Czarking0 (talk) 17:08, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not in particular, haven't got much time these days. You're welcome to try, maybe I can help out. CNC (talk) 20:58, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

^ Slaughter, Isaac; Peytavin, Axel; Ugander, Johan; Saveski, Martin (2025). "Community Notes Moderate Engagement With and Diffusion of False Information Online". arXiv:2502.13322 [cs.SI].
^ Renault, Thomas; Restrepo Amariles, David; Troussel, Aurore (2024). "Collaboratively adding context to social media posts reduces the sharing of false news". arXiv:2404.02803 [econ.GN].
^ Chuai, Yuwei; Pilarski, Moritz; Renault, Thomas; Restrepo-Amariles, David; Troussel-Clément, Aurore; Lenzini, Gabriele; Pröllochs, Nicolas (2024). "Community-based fact-checking reduces the spread of misleading posts on social media". arXiv:2409.08781 [cs.SI].
^ Bell, Karissa (2024-10-29). "X is trying to make Community Notes faster with 'lightning notes'". Engadget. Retrieved 2025-04-10.
^ Drolsbach, C. P.; Solovev, K.; Pröllochs, N. (2024-05-31). "Community notes increase trust in fact-checking on social media". PNAS Nexus. 3 (7): pgae217. doi:10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae217. PMC 11212665. PMID 38948016.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: PMC format (link)

[Slaughter-2025-1] Slaughter, Isaac; Peytavin, Axel; Ugander, Johan; Saveski, Martin (2025). "Community Notes Moderate Engagement With and Diffusion of False Information Online". arXiv:2502.13322 [cs.SI].

[Renault-2024-2] Renault, Thomas; Restrepo Amariles, David; Troussel, Aurore (2024). "Collaboratively adding context to social media posts reduces the sharing of false news". arXiv:2404.02803 [econ.GN].

[Chuai-2024-3] Chuai, Yuwei; Pilarski, Moritz; Renault, Thomas; Restrepo-Amariles, David; Troussel-Clément, Aurore; Lenzini, Gabriele; Pröllochs, Nicolas (2024). "Community-based fact-checking reduces the spread of misleading posts on social media". arXiv:2409.08781 [cs.SI].

[Karissa-Bell-2024-4] Bell, Karissa (2024-10-29). "X is trying to make Community Notes faster with 'lightning notes'". Engadget. Retrieved 2025-04-10.

[Drolsbach-2024-5] Drolsbach, C. P.; Solovev, K.; Pröllochs, N. (2024-05-31). "Community notes increase trust in fact-checking on social media". PNAS Nexus. 3 (7): pgae217. doi:10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae217. PMC 11212665. PMID 38948016.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: PMC format (link)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]