“COVID-19是一场骗局吗?:审核b谷歌四种语言搜索结果中与COVID-19阴谋相关信息和错误信息的质量

IF 5.9 3区 管理学 Q1 BUSINESS
Shakked Dabran-Zivan, A. Baram‐Tsabari, R. Shapira, Miri Yitshaki, Daria Dvorzhitskaia, Nir Grinberg
{"title":"“COVID-19是一场骗局吗?:审核b谷歌四种语言搜索结果中与COVID-19阴谋相关信息和错误信息的质量","authors":"Shakked Dabran-Zivan, A. Baram‐Tsabari, R. Shapira, Miri Yitshaki, Daria Dvorzhitskaia, Nir Grinberg","doi":"10.1108/intr-07-2022-0560","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PurposeAccurate information is the basis for well-informed decision-making, which is particularly challenging in the dynamic reality of a pandemic. Search engines are a major gateway for obtaining information, yet little is known about the quality and scientific accuracy of information answering conspiracy-related queries about COVID-19, especially outside of English-speaking countries and languages.Design/methodology/approachThe authors conducted an algorithmic audit of Google Search, emulating search queries about COVID-19 conspiracy theories in 10 different locations and four languages (English, Arabic, Russian, and Hebrew) and used content analysis by native language speakers to examine the quality of the available information.FindingsSearching the same conspiracies in different languages led to fundamentally different results. English had the largest share of 52% high-quality scientific information. The average quality score of the English-language results was significantly higher than in Russian and Arabic. Non-English languages had a considerably higher percentage of conspiracy-supporting content. In Russian, nearly 40% of the results supported conspiracies compared to 18% in English.Originality/valueThis study’s findings highlight structural differences that significantly limit access to high-quality, balanced, and accurate information about the pandemic, despite its existence on the Internet in another language. Addressing these gaps has the potential to improve individual decision-making collective outcomes for non-English societies.","PeriodicalId":54925,"journal":{"name":"Internet Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"“Is COVID-19 a hoax?”: auditing the quality of COVID-19 conspiracy-related information and misinformation in Google search results in four languages\",\"authors\":\"Shakked Dabran-Zivan, A. Baram‐Tsabari, R. Shapira, Miri Yitshaki, Daria Dvorzhitskaia, Nir Grinberg\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/intr-07-2022-0560\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"PurposeAccurate information is the basis for well-informed decision-making, which is particularly challenging in the dynamic reality of a pandemic. Search engines are a major gateway for obtaining information, yet little is known about the quality and scientific accuracy of information answering conspiracy-related queries about COVID-19, especially outside of English-speaking countries and languages.Design/methodology/approachThe authors conducted an algorithmic audit of Google Search, emulating search queries about COVID-19 conspiracy theories in 10 different locations and four languages (English, Arabic, Russian, and Hebrew) and used content analysis by native language speakers to examine the quality of the available information.FindingsSearching the same conspiracies in different languages led to fundamentally different results. English had the largest share of 52% high-quality scientific information. The average quality score of the English-language results was significantly higher than in Russian and Arabic. Non-English languages had a considerably higher percentage of conspiracy-supporting content. In Russian, nearly 40% of the results supported conspiracies compared to 18% in English.Originality/valueThis study’s findings highlight structural differences that significantly limit access to high-quality, balanced, and accurate information about the pandemic, despite its existence on the Internet in another language. Addressing these gaps has the potential to improve individual decision-making collective outcomes for non-English societies.\",\"PeriodicalId\":54925,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Internet Research\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Internet Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"94\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/intr-07-2022-0560\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Internet Research","FirstCategoryId":"94","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/intr-07-2022-0560","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的准确的信息是知情决策的基础,这在大流行病的动态现实中尤其具有挑战性。搜索引擎是获取信息的主要途径,但对于回答与COVID-19阴谋相关的查询的信息的质量和科学准确性知之甚少,特别是在英语国家和语言之外。设计/方法/方法作者对谷歌搜索进行了算法审计,模拟了10个不同地点和4种语言(英语、阿拉伯语、俄语和希伯来语)的关于COVID-19阴谋论的搜索查询,并使用母语人士的内容分析来检查可用信息的质量。用不同的语言搜索同样的阴谋,结果却截然不同。英语在52%的高质量科学信息中占有最大的份额。英语成绩的平均质量分数明显高于俄语和阿拉伯语。非英语语言中支持阴谋论的内容比例要高得多。在俄语中,近40%的结果支持阴谋论,而在英语中,这一比例为18%。独创性/价值本研究的发现突出了结构性差异,这些差异极大地限制了获取有关大流行的高质量、平衡和准确信息的机会,尽管互联网上有另一种语言的信息。解决这些差距有可能改善非英语社会的个人决策集体结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
“Is COVID-19 a hoax?”: auditing the quality of COVID-19 conspiracy-related information and misinformation in Google search results in four languages
PurposeAccurate information is the basis for well-informed decision-making, which is particularly challenging in the dynamic reality of a pandemic. Search engines are a major gateway for obtaining information, yet little is known about the quality and scientific accuracy of information answering conspiracy-related queries about COVID-19, especially outside of English-speaking countries and languages.Design/methodology/approachThe authors conducted an algorithmic audit of Google Search, emulating search queries about COVID-19 conspiracy theories in 10 different locations and four languages (English, Arabic, Russian, and Hebrew) and used content analysis by native language speakers to examine the quality of the available information.FindingsSearching the same conspiracies in different languages led to fundamentally different results. English had the largest share of 52% high-quality scientific information. The average quality score of the English-language results was significantly higher than in Russian and Arabic. Non-English languages had a considerably higher percentage of conspiracy-supporting content. In Russian, nearly 40% of the results supported conspiracies compared to 18% in English.Originality/valueThis study’s findings highlight structural differences that significantly limit access to high-quality, balanced, and accurate information about the pandemic, despite its existence on the Internet in another language. Addressing these gaps has the potential to improve individual decision-making collective outcomes for non-English societies.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Internet Research
Internet Research 工程技术-电信学
CiteScore
11.20
自引率
10.20%
发文量
85
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: This wide-ranging interdisciplinary journal looks at the social, ethical, economic and political implications of the internet. Recent issues have focused on online and mobile gaming, the sharing economy, and the dark side of social media.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信