Category Archives: Information Forensics

Got TweetCred? Use it To Automatically Identify Credible Tweets (Updated)

Update: Users have created an astounding one million+ tags over the past few weeks, which will help increase the accuracy of TweetCred in coming months as we use these tags to further train our machine learning classifiers. We will be releasing our Firefox plugin in the next few days. In the meantime, we have just released our paper on TweetCred which describes our methodology & classifiers in more detail.

What if there were a way to automatically identify credible tweets during major events like disasters? Sounds rather far-fetched, right? Think again.

The new field of Digital Information Forensics is increasingly making use of Big Data analytics and techniques from artificial intelligence like machine learning to automatically verify social media. This is how my QCRI colleague ChaTo et al. already predicted both credible and non-credible tweets generated after the Chile Earthquake (with an accuracy of 86%). Meanwhile, my colleagues Aditi, et al. from IIIT Delhi also used machine learning to automatically rank the credibility of some 35 million tweets generated during a dozen major international events such as the UK Riots and the Libya Crisis. So we teamed up with Aditi et al. to turn those academic findings into TweetCred, a free app that identifies credible tweets automatically.

CNN TweetCred

We’ve just launched the very first version of TweetCred—key word being first. This means that our new app is still experimental. On the plus side, since TweetCred is powered by machine learning, it will become increasingly accurate over time as more users make use of the app and “teach” it the difference between credible and non-credible tweets. Teaching TweetCred is as simple as a click of the mouse. Take the tweet below, for example.

ARC TweetCred Teach

TweetCred scores each tweet based based on a 7-point system, the higher the number of blue dots, the more credible the content of the tweet is likely to be. Note that a TweetCred score also takes into account any pictures or videos included in a tweet along with the reputation and popularity of the Twitter user. Naturally, TweetCred won’t always get it right, which is where the teaching and machine learning come in. The above tweet from the American Red Cross is more credible than three dots would suggest. So you simply hover your mouse over the blue dots and click on the “thumbs down” icon to tell TweetCred it got that tweet wrong. The app will then ask you to tag the correct level of credibility for that tweet is.

ARC TweetCred Teach 3

That’s all there is to it. As noted above, this is just the first version of TweetCred. The more all of us use (and teach) the app, the more accurate it will be. So please try it out and spread the word. You can download the Chrome Extension for TweetCred here. If you don’t use Chrome, you can still use the browser version here although the latter has less functionality. We very much welcome any feedback you may have, so simply post feedback in the comments section below. Keep in mind that TweetCred is specifically designed to rate the credibility of disaster/crisis related tweets rather than any random topic on Twitter.

As I note in my book Digital Humanitarians (forthcoming), empirical studies have shown that we’re less likely to spread rumors on Twitter if false tweets are publicly identified by Twitter users as being non-credible. In fact, these studies show that such public exposure increases the number of Twitter users who then seek to stop the spread of said of rumor-related tweets by 150%. But, it makes a big difference whether one sees the rumors first or the tweets dismissing said rumors first. So my hope is that TweetCred will help accelerate Twitter’s self-correcting behavior by automatically identifying credible tweets while countering rumor-related tweets in real-time.

This project is a joint collaboration between IIIT and QCRI. Big thanks to Aditi and team for their heavy lifting on the coding of TweetCred. If the experiments go well, my QCRI colleagues and I may integrate TweetCred within our AIDR (Artificial Intelligence for Disaster Response) and Verily platforms.


See also:

  • New Insights on How to Verify Social Media [link]
  • Predicting the Credibility of Disaster Tweets Automatically [link]
  • Auto-Ranking Credibility of Tweets During Major Events [link]
  • Auto-Identifying Fake Images on Twitter During Disasters [link]
  • Truth in the Age of Social Media: A Big Data Challenge [link]
  • Analyzing Fake Content on Twitter During Boston Bombings [link]
  • How to Verify Crowdsourced Information from Social Media [link]
  • Crowdsourcing Critical Thinking to Verify Social Media [link]
  • Tweets, Crises and Behavioral Psychology: On Credibility and Information Sharing [link]

New Insights on How To Verify Social Media

The “field” of information forensics has seen some interesting developments in recent weeks. Take the Verification Handbook or Twitter Lie-Detector project, for example. The Social Sensor project is yet another new initiative. In this blog post, I seek to make sense of these new developments and to identify where this new field may be going. In so doing, I highlight key insights from each initiative. 


The co-editors of the Verification Handbook remind us that misinformation and rumors are hardly new during disasters. Chapter 1 opens with the following account from 1934:

“After an 8.1 magnitude earthquake struck northern India, it wasn’t long before word circulated that 4,000 buildings had collapsed in one city, causing ‘innumerable deaths.’ Other reports said a college’s main building, and that of the region’s High Court, had also collapsed.”

These turned out to be false rumors. The BBC’s User Generated Content (UGC) Hub would have been able to debunk these rumors. In their opinion, “The business of verifying and debunking content from the public relies far more on journalistic hunches than snazzy technology.” So they would have been right at home in the technology landscape of 1934. To be sure, they contend that “one does not need to be an IT expert or have special equipment to ask and answer the fundamental questions used to judge whether a scene is staged or not.” In any event, the BBC does not “verify something unless [they] speak to the person that created it, in most cases.” What about the other cases? How many of those cases are there? And how did they ultimately decide on whether the information was true or false even though they did not  speak to the person that created it?  

As this new study argues, big news organizations like the BBC aim to contact the original authors of user generated content (UGC) not only to try and “protect their editorial integrity but also because rights and payments for newsworthy footage are increasingly factors. By 2013, the volume of material and speed with which they were able to verify it [UGC] were becoming significant frustrations and, in most cases, smaller news organizations simply don’t have the manpower to carry out these checks” (Schifferes et al., 2014).

Credit: ZDnet

Chapter 3 of the Handbook notes that the BBC’s UGC Hub began operations in early 2005. At the time, “they were reliant on people sending content to one central email address. At that point, Facebook had just over 5 million users, rather than the more than one billion today. YouTube and Twitter hadn’t launched.” Today, more than 100 hours of content is uploaded to YouTube every minute; over 400 million tweets are sent each day and over 1 million pieces of content are posted to Facebook every 30 seconds. Now, as this third chapter rightly notes, “No technology can automatically verify a piece of UGC with 100 percent certainty. However, the human eye or traditional investigations aren’t enough either. It’s the combination of the two.” New York Times journalists concur: “There is a problem with scale… We need algorithms to take more onus off human beings, to pick and understand the best elements” (cited in Schifferes et al., 2014).

People often (mistakenly) see “verification as a simple yes/no action: Something has been verified or not. In practice, […] verification is a process” (Chapter 3). More specifically, this process is one of satisficing. As colleagues Leysia Palen et al.  note in this study, “Information processing during mass emergency can only satisfice because […] the ‘complexity of the environment is immensely greater than the computational powers of the adaptive system.'” To this end, “It is an illusion to believe that anyone has perfectly accurate information in mass emergency and disaster situations to account for the whole event. If someone did, then the situation would not be a disaster or crisis.” This explains why Leysia et al seek to shift the debate to one focused on the helpfulness of information rather the problematic true/false dichotomy.

Credit: Ann Wuyts

“In highly contextualized situations where time is of the essence, people need support to consider the content across multiple sources of information. In the online arena, this means assessing the credibility and content of information distributed across [the web]” (Leysia et al., 2011). This means that, “Technical support can go a long way to help collate and inject metadata that make explicit many of the inferences that the every day analyst must make to assess credibility and therefore helpfulness” (Leysia et al., 2011). In sum, the human versus computer debate vis-a-vis the verification of social media is somewhat pointless. The challenge moving forward resides in identifying the best ways to combine human cognition with machine computing. As Leysia et al. rightly note, “It is not the job of the […] tools to make decisions but rather to allow their users to reach a decision as quickly and confidently as possible.”

This may explain why Chapter 7 (which I authored) applies both human and advanced computing techniques to the verification challenge. Indeed, I explicitly advocate for a hybrid approach. In contrast, the Twitter Lie-Detector project known as Pheme apparently seeks to use machine learning alone to automatically verify online rumors as they spread on social networks. Overall, this is great news—the more groups that focus on this verification challenge, the better for those us engaged in digital humanitarian response. It remains to be seen, however, whether machine learning alone will make Pheme a success.


In the meantime, the EU’s Social Sensor project is developing new software tools to help journalists assess the reliability of social media content (Schifferes et al., 2014). A preliminary series of interviews revealed that journalists were most interested in Social Sensor software for:

1. Predicting or alerting breaking news

2. Verifying social media content–quickly identifying who has posted a tweet or video and establishing “truth or lie”

So the Social Sensor project is developing an “Alethiometer” (Alethia is Greek for ‘truth’) to “meter the credibility of of information coming from any source by examining the three Cs—Contributors, Content and Context. These seek to measure three key dimensions of credibility: the reliability of contributors, the nature of the content, and the context in which the information is presented. This reflects the range of considerations that working journalists take into account when trying to verify social media content. Each of these will be measured by multiple metrics based on our research into the steps that journalists go through manually. The results of [these] steps can be weighed and combined [metadata] to provide a sense of credibility to guide journalists” (Schifferes et al., 2014).


On our end, my colleagues and at QCRI are continuing to collaborate with several partners to experiment with advanced computing methods to address the social media verification challenge. As noted in Chapter 7, Verily, a platform that combines time-critical crowdsourcing and critical thinking, is still in the works. We’re also continuing our collaboration on a Twitter credibility plugin (more in Chapter 7). In addition, we are exploring whether we can microtask the computation of source credibility scores using MicroMappers.

Of course, the above will sound like “snazzy technologies” to seasoned journalists with no background or interest in advanced computing. But this doesn’t seem to stop them from complaining that “Twitter search is very hit and miss;” that what Twitter “produces is not comprehensive and the filters are not comprehensive enough” (BBC social media expert, cited in Schifferes et al., 2014). As one of my PhD dissertation advisors (Clay Shirky) noted a while back already, information overflow (Big Data) is due to “Filter Failure”. This is precisely why my colleagues and I are spending so much of our time developing better filters—filters powered by human and machine computing, such as AIDR. These types of filters can scale. BBC journalists on their own do not, unfortunately. But they can act on hunches and intuition based on years of hands-on professional experience.

The “field” of digital information forensics has come along way since I first wrote about how to verify social media content back in 2011. While I won’t touch on the Handbook’s many other chapters here, the entire report is an absolute must read for anyone interested and/or working in the verification space. At the very least, have a look at Chapter 9, which combines each chapter’s verification strategies in the form of a simple check-list. Also, Chapter 10 includes a list of  tools to aid in the verification process.

In the meantime, I really hope that we end the pointless debate about human versus machine. This is not an either/or issue. As a colleague once noted, what we really need is a way to combine the power of algorithms and the wisdom of the crowd with the instincts of experts.


See also:

  • Predicting the Credibility of Disaster Tweets Automatically [link]
  • Auto-Ranking Credibility of Tweets During Major Events [link]
  • Auto-Identifying Fake Images on Twitter During Disasters [link]
  • Truth in the Age of Social Media: A Big Data Challenge [link]
  • Analyzing Fake Content on Twitter During Boston Bombings [link]
  • How to Verify Crowdsourced Information from Social Media [link]
  • Crowdsourcing Critical Thinking to Verify Social Media [link]

Yes, I’m Writing a Book (on Digital Humanitarians)

I recently signed a book deal with Taylor & Francis Press. The book, which is tentatively titled “Digital Humanitarians: How Big Data is Changing the Face of Disaster Response,” is slated to be published next year. The book will chart the rise of digital humanitarian response from the Haiti Earthquake to 2015, highlighting critical lessons learned and best practices. To this end, the book will draw on real-world examples of digital humanitarians in action to explain how they use new technologies and crowdsourcing to make sense of “Big (Crisis) Data”. In sum, the book will describe how digital humanitarians & humanitarian technologies are together reshaping the humanitarian space and what this means for the future of disaster response. The purpose of this book is to inspire and inform the next generation of (digital) humanitarians while serving as a guide for established humanitarian organizations & emergency management professionals who wish to take advantage of this transformation in humanitarian response.


The book will thus consolidate critical lessons learned in digital humanitarian response (such as the verification of social media during crises) so that members of the public along with professionals in both international humanitarian response and domestic emergency management can improve their own relief efforts in the face of “Big Data” and rapidly evolving technologies. The book will also be of interest to academics and students who wish to better understand methodological issues around the use of social media and user-generated content for disaster response; or how technology is transforming collective action and how “Big Data” is disrupting humanitarian institutions, for example. Finally, this book will also speak to those who want to make a difference; to those who of you who may have little to no experience in humanitarian response but who still wish to help others affected during disasters—even if you happen to be thousands of miles away. You are the next wave of digital humanitarians and this book will explain how you can indeed make a difference.

The book will not be written in a technical or academic writing style. Instead, I’ll be using a more “storytelling” form of writing combined with a conversational tone. This approach is perfectly compatible with the clear documentation of critical lessons emerging from the rapidly evolving digital humanitarian space. This conversational writing style is not at odds with the need to explain the more technical insights being applied to develop next generation humanitarian technologies. Quite on the contrary, I’ll be using intuitive examples & metaphors to make the most technical details not only understandable but entertaining.

While this journey is just beginning, I’d like to express my sincere thanks to my mentors for their invaluable feedback on my book proposal. I’d also like to express my deep gratitude to my point of contact at Taylor & Francis Press for championing this book from the get-go. Last but certainly not least, I’d like to sincerely thank the Rockefeller Foundation for providing me with a residency fellowship this Spring in order to accelerate my writing.

I’ll be sure to provide an update when the publication date has been set. In the meantime, many thanks for being an iRevolution reader!


The Best of iRevolution in 2013

iRevolution crossed the 1 million hits mark in 2013, so big thanks to iRevolution readers for spending time here during the past 12 months. This year also saw close to 150 new blog posts published on iRevolution. Here is a short selection of the Top 15 iRevolution posts of 2013:

How to Create Resilience Through Big Data

Humanitarianism in the Network Age: Groundbreaking Study

Opening Keynote Address at CrisisMappers 2013

The Women of Crisis Mapping

Data Protection Protocols for Crisis Mapping

Launching: SMS Code of Conduct for Disaster Response

MicroMappers: Microtasking for Disaster Response

AIDR: Artificial Intelligence for Disaster Response

Social Media, Disaster Response and the Streetlight Effect

Why the Share Economy is Important for Disaster Response

Automatically Identifying Fake Images on Twitter During Disasters

Why Anonymity is Important for Truth & Trustworthiness Online

How Crowdsourced Disaster Response Threatens Chinese Gov

Seven Principles for Big Data and Resilience Projects

#NoShare: A Personal Twist on Data Privacy

I’ll be mostly offline until February 1st, 2014 to spend time with family & friends, and to get started on a new exciting & ambitious project. I’ll be making this project public in January via iRevolution, so stay tuned. In the meantime, wishing iRevolution readers a very Merry Happy Everything!


#Westgate Tweets: A Detailed Study in Information Forensics

My team and I at QCRI have just completed a detailed analysis of the 13,200+ tweets posted from one hour before the attacks began until two hours into the attack. The purpose of this study, which will be launched at CrisisMappers 2013 in Nairobi tomorrow, is to make sense of the Big (Crisis) Data generated during the first hours of the siege. A summary of our results are displayed below. The full results of our analysis and discussion of findings are available as a GoogleDoc and also PDF. The purpose of this public GoogleDoc is to solicit comments on our methodology so as to inform the next phase of our research. Indeed, our aim is to categorize and study the entire Westgate dataset in the coming months (730,000+ tweets). In the meantime, sincere appreciation go to my outstanding QCRI Research Assistants, Ms. Brittany Card and Ms. Justine MacKinnon for their hard work on the coding and analysis of the 13,200+ tweets. Our study builds on this preliminary review.

The following 7 figures summarize the main findings of our study. These are discussed in more detail in the GoogleDoc/PDF.

Figure 1: Who Authored the Most Tweets?

Figure 2: Frequency of Tweets by Eyewitnesses Over Time?

Figure 3: Who Were the Tweets Directed At?

Figure 4: What Content Did Tweets Contain?

Figure 5: What Terms Were Used to Reference the Attackers?

Figure 6: What Terms Were Used to Reference Attackers Over Time?

Figure 7: What Kind of Multimedia Content Was Shared?

Analyzing Fake Content on Twitter During Boston Marathon Bombings

As iRevolution readers already know, the application of Information Forensics to social media is one of my primary areas of interest. So I’m always on the lookout for new and related studies, such as this one (PDF), which was just published by colleagues of mine in India. The study by Aditi Gupta et al. analyzes fake content shared on Twitter during the Boston Marathon Bombings earlier this year.


Gupta et al. collected close to 8 million unique tweets posted by 3.7 million unique users between April 15-19th, 2013. The table below provides more details. The authors found that rumors and fake content comprised 29% of the content that went viral on Twitter, while 51% of the content constituted generic opinions and comments. The remaining 20% relayed true information. Interestingly, approximately 75% of fake tweets were propagated via mobile phone devices compared to true tweets which comprised 64% of tweets posted via mobiles.

Table1 Gupta et al

The authors also found that many users with high social reputation and verified accounts were responsible for spreading the bulk of the fake content posted to Twitter. Indeed, the study shows that fake content did not travel rapidly during the first hour after the bombing. Rumors and fake information only goes viral after Twitter users with large numbers of followers start propagating the fake content. To this end, “determining whether some information is true or fake, based on only factors based on high number of followers and verified accounts is not possible in the initial hours.”

Gupta et al. also identified close to 32,000 new Twitter accounts created between April 15-19 that also posted at least one tweet about the bombings. About 20% (6,073 accounts) of these new accounts were subsequently suspended by Twitter. The authors found that 98.7% of these suspended accounts did not include the word Boston in their names and usernames. They also note that some of these deleted accounts were “quite influential” during the Boston tragedy. The figure below depicts the number of suspended Twitter accounts created in the hours and days following the blast.

Figure 2 Gupta et al

The authors also carried out some basic social network analysis of the suspended Twitter accounts. First, they removed from the analysis all suspended accounts that did not interact with each other, which left just 69 accounts. Next, they analyzed the network typology of these 69 accounts, which produced four distinct graph structures: Single Link, Closed Community, Star Typology and Self-Loops. These are displayed in the figure below (click to enlarge).

Figure 3 Gupta et al

The two most interesting graphs are the Closed Community and Star Typology graphs—the second and third graphs in the figure above.

Closed Community: Users that retweet and mention each other, forming a closed community as indicated by the high closeness centrality values produced by the social network analysis. “All these nodes have similar usernames too, all usernames have the same prefix and only numbers in the suffixes are different. This indicates that either these profiles were created by same or similar minded people for posting common propaganda posts.” Gupta et al. analyzed the content posted by these users and found that all were “tweeting the same propaganda and hate filled tweet.”

Star Typology: Easily mistakable for the authentic “BostonMarathon” Twitter account, the fake account “BostonMarathons” created plenty of confusion. Many users propagated the fake content posted by the BostonMarathons account. As the authors note, “Impersonation or creating fake profiles is a crime that results in identity theft and is punishable by law in many countries.”

The automatic detection of these network structures on Twitter may enable us to detect and counter fake content in the future. In the meantime, my colleagues and I at QCRI are collaborating with Aditi Gupta et al. to develop a “Credibility Plugin” for Twitter based on this analysis and earlier peer-reviewed research carried out by my colleague ChaTo. Stay tuned for updates.


See also:

  • Boston Bombings: Analyzing First 1,000 Seconds on Twitter [link]
  • Taking the Pulse of the Boston Bombings on Twitter [link]
  • Predicting the Credibility of Disaster Tweets Automatically [link]
  • Auto-Ranking Credibility of Tweets During Major Events [link]
  • Auto-Identifying Fake Images on Twitter During Disasters [link]
  • How to Verify Crowdsourced Information from Social Media [link]
  • Crowdsourcing Critical Thinking to Verify Social Media [link]

World Disaster Report: Next Generation Humanitarian Technology

This year’s World Disaster Report was just released this morning. I had the honor of authoring Chapter 3 on “Strengthening Humanitarian Information: The Role of Technology.” The chapter focuses on the rise of “Digital Humanitarians” and explains how “Next Generation Humanitarian Technology” is used to manage Big (Crisis) Data. The chapter complements the groundbreaking report “Humanitarianism in the Network Age” published by UN OCHA earlier this year.

The key topics addressed in the chapter include:

  • Big (Crisis) Data
  • Self-Organized Disaster Response
  • Crowdsourcing & Bounded Crowdsourcing
  • Verifying Crowdsourced Information
  • Volunteer & Technical Communities
  • Digital Humanitarians
  • Libya Crisis Map
  • Typhoon Pablo Crisis Map
  • Syria Crisis Map
  • Microtasking for Disaster Response
  • MicroMappers
  • Machine Learning for Disaster Response
  • Artificial Intelligence for Disaster Response (AIDR)
  • American Red Cross Digital Operations Center
  • Data Protection and Security
  • Policymaking for Humanitarian Technology

I’m particularly interested in getting feedback on this chapter, so feel free to pose any comments or questions you may have in the comments section below.


See also:

  • What is Big (Crisis) Data? [link]
  • Humanitarianism in the Network Age [link]
  • Predicting Credibility of Disaster Tweets [link]
  • Crowdsourced Verification for Disaster Response [link]
  • MicroMappers: Microtasking for Disaster Response [link]
  • AIDR: Artificial Intelligence for Disaster Response [link]
  • Research Agenda for Next Generation Humanitarian Tech [link]