A recent development from the University of Washington involves creating and testing Viblio, a novel browser extension designed to combat misinformation on YouTube videos by incorporating Wikipedia-like citations.
This extension introduces an alternative timeline embedded with notes and source links that either support, refute, or extend upon the video's presented information.
The Viblio Extension to Combat Misinformation
The Viblio extension offers a list view of citations, resembling the "References" section in Wikipedia articles. The tool proved valuable for evaluating video credibility in trials involving 12 participants covering diverse topics such as biology, political news, and COVID-19 vaccines.
Viblio's design was inspired by the concept of "lateral reading," which encourages viewers to verify information by consulting external sources alongside video content.
Amy X. Zhang, the senior author and assistant professor at the Paul G. Allen School of Computer Science & Engineering, drew from prior experience with crowdsourcing citations and assessments to combat misinformation.
In their research with 12 participants, primarily individuals under 30, the team investigated how viewers assess the credibility of YouTube videos during searches and viewing sessions.
Participants emphasized the significance of source familiarity and channel reputation, noting various indicators of potential misinformation, such as video quality, search result ranking, duration, and view count.
According to the researchers, one participant misunderstood a YouTube information panel as an endorsement from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, highlighting the challenges of discerning video credibility.
Existing methods for verifying video content were deemed insufficient, and there were limited avenues to report inaccuracies without resorting to extreme measures.
Viblio was developed to enhance user comprehension of video content and reduce misinterpretation of supplementary information. Users can contribute citations by clicking a button on the extension, allowing them to insert links, specify citation time spans, and provide optional comments.
How the Citations Work
Citations are color-coded on a timeline: red for refuting video claims, green for supporting them, and blue for providing additional explanations.
During testing, participants utilized Viblio for two weeks, engaging with various videos from diverse sources such as major news outlets and educational channels. The inclusion of additional citations affected participants' perceptions of video credibility.
Challenges were identified in scaling Viblio, particularly concerning conflicting citations in politically charged or controversial videos. Tanu Mitra, a co-author and assistant professor at the UW Information School, expressed concerns about prioritizing conflicting citations from users with differing value systems.
Further research is necessary to expand Viblio to other video platforms like TikTok or Instagram, evaluate long-term user engagement in adding citations, and develop strategies for videos with limited citation availability.
"Once we get past this initial question of how to add citations to videos, then the community vetting question remains very challenging," Zhang said in an official statement.
"It can work. At X, Community Notes is working on ways to prevent people from 'gaming' voting by looking at whether someone always takes the same political side. And Wikipedia has standards for what should be considered a good citation. So it's possible. It just takes resources."
The findings of the research team were published in arXiv.
Related Article : YouTube TV's Multiview Is Coming to Android Smartphones, Tablets-Pre-Selected Only
