The rise of misinformation underscores the need for scalable and reliable fact-checking solutions. Large language models (LLMs) hold promise in automating fact verification, yet their effectiveness across global contexts remains uncertain. We systematically evaluate nine established LLMs across multiple categories (open/closed-source, multiple sizes, diverse architectures, reasoning-based) using 5,000 claims previously assessed by 174 professional fact-checking organizations across 47 languages. Our methodology tests model generalizability on claims postdating training cutoffs and four prompting strategies mirroring both citizen and professional fact-checker interactions, with over 240,000 human annotations as ground truth. Findings reveal a concerning pattern resembling the Dunning-Kruger effect: smaller, accessible models show high confidence despite lower accuracy, while larger models demonstrate higher accuracy but lower confidence. This risks systemic bias in information verification, as resource-constrained organizations typically use smaller models. Performance gaps are most pronounced for non-English languages and claims originating from the Global South, threatening to widen existing information inequalities. These results establish a multilingual benchmark for future research and provide an evidence base for policy aimed at ensuring equitable access to trustworthy, AI-assisted fact-checking.

Calls to use open generative language models in academic research have highlighted the need for reproducibility and transparency in scientific research. However, the impact of generative AI extends well beyond academia, as corporations and public interest organizations have begun integrating these models into their data science pipelines. We expand this lens to include the impact of open models on organizations, focusing specifically on fact-checking organizations, which use AI to observe and analyze large volumes of circulating misinformation, yet must also ensure the reproducibility and impartiality of their work. We wanted to understand where fact-checking organizations use open models in their data science pipelines; what motivates their use of open models or proprietary models; and how their use of open or proprietary models can inform research on the societal impact of generative AI. To answer these questions, we conducted an interview study with N=24 professionals at 20 fact-checking organizations on six continents. Based on these interviews, we offer a five-component conceptual model of where fact-checking organizations employ generative AI to support or automate parts of their data science pipeline, including Data Ingestion, Data Analysis, Data Retrieval, Data Delivery, and Data Sharing. We then provide taxonomies of fact-checking organizations' motivations for using open models and the limitations that prevent them for further adopting open models, finding that they prefer open models for Organizational Autonomy, Data Privacy and Ownership, Application Specificity, and Capability Transparency. However, they nonetheless use proprietary models due to perceived advantages in Performance, Usability, and Safety, as well as Opportunity Costs related to participation in emerging generative AI ecosystems. Our work provides novel perspective on open models in data-driven organizations.

Generative AI appears poised to transform white collar professions, with more than 90% of Fortune 500 companies using OpenAI's flagship GPT models, which have been characterized as "general purpose technologies" capable of effecting epochal changes in the economy. But how will such technologies impact organizations whose job is to verify and report factual information, and to ensure the health of the information ecosystem? To investigate this question, we conducted 30 interviews with N=38 participants working at 29 fact-checking organizations across six continents, asking about how they use generative AI and the opportunities and challenges they see in the technology. We found that uses of generative AI envisioned by fact-checkers differ based on organizational infrastructure, with applications for quality assurance in Editing, for trend analysis in Investigation, and for information literacy in Advocacy. We used the TOE framework to describe participant concerns ranging from the Technological (lack of transparency), to the Organizational (resource constraints), to the Environmental (uncertain and evolving policy). Building on the insights of our participants, we describe value tensions between fact-checking and generative AI, and propose a novel Verification dimension to the design space of generative models for information verification work. Finally, we outline an agenda for fairness, accountability, and transparency research to support the responsible use of generative AI in fact-checking. Throughout, we highlight the importance of human infrastructure and labor in producing verified information in collaboration with AI. We expect that this work will inform not only the scientific literature on fact-checking, but also contribute to understanding of organizational adaptation to a powerful but unreliable new technology.

Misinformation and disinformation are growing threats in the digital age, spreading rapidly across languages and borders. This paper investigates the prevalence and dynamics of multilingual misinformation through an analysis of over 250,000 unique fact-checks spanning 95 languages. First, we find that while the majority of misinformation claims are only fact-checked once, 11.7%, corresponding to more than 21,000 claims, are checked multiple times. Using fact-checks as a proxy for the spread of misinformation, we find 33% of repeated claims cross linguistic boundaries, suggesting that some misinformation permeates language barriers. However, spreading patterns exhibit strong homophily, with misinformation more likely to spread within the same language. To study the evolution of claims over time and mutations across languages, we represent fact-checks with multilingual sentence embeddings and cluster semantically similar claims. We analyze the connected components and shortest paths connecting different versions of a claim finding that claims gradually drift over time and undergo greater alteration when traversing languages. Overall, this novel investigation of multilingual misinformation provides key insights. It quantifies redundant fact-checking efforts, establishes that some claims diffuse across languages, measures linguistic homophily, and models the temporal and cross-lingual evolution of claims. The findings advocate for expanded information sharing between fact-checkers globally while underscoring the importance of localized verification.

We describe a significant emerging trend away from the techno-solutionist approach to problems that seeks to create and understand a new paradigm: a productive interplay between algorithms and people.

To mitigate the negative effects of false information more effectively, the development of automated AI (artificial intelligence) tools assisting fact-checkers is needed. Despite the existing research, there is still a gap between the fact-checking practitioners' needs and pains and the current AI research. We aspire to bridge this gap by employing methods of information behavior research to identify implications for designing better human-centered AI-based supporting tools. In this study, we conducted semi-structured in-depth interviews with Central European fact-checkers. The information behavior and requirements on desired supporting tools were analyzed using iterative bottom-up content analysis, bringing the techniques from grounded theory. The most significant needs were validated with a survey extended to fact-checkers from across Europe, in which we collected 24 responses from 20 European countries, i.e., 62% active European IFCN (International Fact-Checking Network) signatories. Our contributions are theoretical as well as practical. First, by being able to map our findings about the needs of fact-checking organizations to the relevant tasks for AI research, we have shown that the methods of information behavior research are relevant for studying the processes in the organizations and that these methods can be used to bridge the gap between the users and AI researchers. Second, we have identified fact-checkers' needs and pains focusing on so far unexplored dimensions and emphasizing the needs of fact-checkers from Central and Eastern Europe as well as from low-resource language groups which have implications for development of new resources (datasets) as well as for the focus of AI research in this domain.

The reporting and analysis of current events around the globe has expanded from professional, editor-lead journalism all the way to citizen journalism. Politicians and other key players enjoy direct access to their audiences through social media, bypassing the filters of official cables or traditional media. However, the multiple advantages of free speech and direct communication are dimmed by the misuse of the media to spread inaccurate or misleading claims. These phenomena have led to the modern incarnation of the fact-checker -- a professional whose main aim is to examine claims using available evidence to assess their veracity. As in other text forensics tasks, the amount of information available makes the work of the fact-checker more difficult. With this in mind, starting from the perspective of the professional fact-checker, we survey the available intelligent technologies that can support the human expert in the different steps of her fact-checking endeavor. These include identifying claims worth fact-checking; detecting relevant previously fact-checked claims; retrieving relevant evidence to fact-check a claim; and actually verifying a claim. In each case, we pay attention to the challenges in future work and the potential impact on real-world fact-checking.

Fact-checkers are turning to WhatsApp to help ensure people are given reliable information on COVID-19. Poynter Institute's International Fact-Checkers Network (IFCN) said it will launch a bot on the popular messaging service WhatsApp that allows users to query terms like'masks' or'coronavirus symptoms.' The bot is designed to pull from the'translated work of more than 80 fact-checking organizations worldwide' and can use that information to determine whether content has been rated as false by fact-checkers. The IFCN's chatbot will pull from a database that has identified more than 4,000 coronavirus hoaxes according to the organization Specifically, a bot will pull from the IFCN's CoronaVirusFacts database which, with the help of fact-checkers from 74 countries around the world, has identified more than 4,000 coronavirus hoaxes according to the organization. The inclusion of a reputable fact-checking bot on WhatsApp makes senes given the platform's popularity.

We propose a multi-task deep-learning approach for estimating the check-worthiness of claims in political debates. Given a political debate, such as the 2016 US Presidential and Vice-Presidential ones, the task is to predict which statements in the debate should be prioritized for fact-checking. While different fact-checking organizations would naturally make different choices when analyzing the same debate, we show that it pays to learn from multiple sources simultaneously (PolitiFact, FactCheck, ABC, CNN, NPR, NYT, Chicago Tribune, The Guardian, and Washington Post) in a multi-task learning setup, even when a particular source is chosen as a target to imitate. Our evaluation shows state-of-the-art results on a standard dataset for the task of check-worthiness prediction.

Here is a word of warning to those who infiltrate the content pipeline with information that's not factual. There's heightened demand for new methods to distill the mountains of information we are presented with daily down to the unadulterated facts. People crave a way to cut through the opinions, marketing speak and propaganda to get to the truth. And technology just might be the solution we need to become data-driven decision makers to objectively understand the information. There are reasons why we struggle under the weight of fake or worthless content.