4.2 Article

An exploration of how fake news is taking over social media and putting public health at risk

期刊

HEALTH INFORMATION AND LIBRARIES JOURNAL
卷 38, 期 2, 页码 143-149

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/hir.12320

关键词

global health; information sources; public health; social media

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent statistics show that the coronavirus has caused almost 250,000 deaths and affected 4 million people. Concerns have been raised about the spread of misinformation during the pandemic. A small study aimed to identify the types and sources of COVID-19 misinformation, revealing the widespread dissemination of fake news on social media.
Recent statistics show that almost 1/4 of a million people have died and four million people are affected either with mild or serious health problems caused by coronavirus (COVID-19). These numbers are rapidly increasing (World Health Organization, May 3, 2020c). There is much concern during this pandemic about the spread of misleading or inaccurate information. This article reports on a small study which attempted to identify the types and sources of COVID-19 misinformation. The authors identified and analysed 1225 pieces of COVID-19 fake news stories taken from fact-checkers, myth-busters and COVID-19 dashboards. The study is significant given the concern raised by the WHO Director-General that 'we are not just fighting the pandemic, we are also fighting infodemic'. The study concludes that the COVID-19 infodemic is full of false claims, half backed conspiracy theories and pseudoscientific therapies, regarding the diagnosis, treatment, prevention, origin and spread of the virus. Fake news is pervasive in social media, putting public health at risk. The scale of the crisis and ubiquity of the misleading information require that scientists, health information professionals and journalists exercise their professional responsibility to help the general public identify fake news stories. They should ensure that accurate information is published and disseminated.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据