exaggeration, concealment, misinformation or hoax). We distinguish twelve ... features for each manipulation variety, cr
Information Manipulation Classification Theory for LIS and NLP Victoria L. Rubin (
[email protected]) & Yimin Chen LIT.RL – FIMS – University of Western Ontario – London – Canada
Abstract
The Information Manipulation Classification Theory offers a systematic approach to understanding the differences and similarities among various types of information manipulation (such as falsification, exaggeration, concealment, misinformation or hoax). We distinguish twelve salient factors that manipulation varieties differ by (such as intentionality to deceive, accuracy, and social acceptability) to provide an abstract framework and conceptualize various permutations. Each variety then is represented as a set of features in the twelve-dimensional space. Our contributions are two-fold. In Library and Information Science (LIS) literature, a nuanced understanding of information manipulation varieties and their inter-relation lends greater awareness and sophistication to the ways we think about information and information literacy. For Natural Language Processing (NLP), the model identifies salient features for each manipulation variety, creates a potential for automated recognition and adaptability from deception detection technology to identification of other information manipulation varieties based on similarities.
Objectives
ARE ANALYTICO–SYNTHETIC:
Factors Distinguishing Information Manipulation Varieties
ANALYSIS: discriminate and define the varieties of
information manipulation (by set criteria) unify the varieties into a holistic conceptual system offer the theoretical work with distinguishing factors by which types of information manipulation vary.
A. Quality
PRACTICL APPLICATION:
Examples
Need to cultivate awareness for potential information manipulations, distortions and deception as a kind of information literacy
Background Observing the maxims of Quantity, Quality, Manner, & Relevance (Grice, 1975)
facilitates sense-making & successful communication. Sender’s managing of information to mislead the receiver is a type of uncooperative acts in which “the principles guiding cooperative exchanges are covertly violated” (McCornack, 1992, p. 13).
B. Quantity
1. 2. 3. Accurate Clear Sufficient
enable systematic recognition of the varieties by hand and pose novel text-classification tasks for NLP
Motivation
II. Sender's Goals III. Receiver's & Intentions Perceptions
I. Information Properties
SYNTHESIS:
-accurate, (i.e. inaccurate): falsification, fib, cheat -clear (unclear): distortions, evasions
Conceptualization:
4. Overabundant
C. Context 5. Withheld
6. 7. 8. Socially Culturally Relevant Acceptable Warranted
-sufficient (not enough info): concealment, +socially acceptable: equivocations, evasions omission +culturally warranted: hoax, bluff, exaggeration +overabundant (too much info): overstatements - relevant: dodging, skirting issues, changing +withheld: masking, evasions, equivocation subject
+intentionally deceptive: make-beliefs, overstatements +malicious: forgery, scam, spam, conspiracy
+cooperative: collusion, fiction -misleading: jokes, teasing, myth, irony
Information Manipulation is an umbrella term we use for a variety of distortions that occur in the process of transmitting information in the
information channel (between human agents via artifacts and various presentation formats). Extending the classical Shannon-Weaver’s model of information transmission, we consider alternative outcomes of the transmission – loss of fidelity of the information (on the receiver’s end).
*Deception “a message knowingly and intentionally transmitted by a sender to foster a false belief or conclusion by the perceiver” (Buller &
Examined Taxonomies of Deception* Varieties
The Shannon-Weaver Communication Model (1949) Extended with a “Shadow Process”:
include from 2 to 46 categories Chisholm & Feehan (1977)
The schematic diagram shows the alternative result with the loss of fidelity of information.
Burgoon & Buller (1994)
Metts (1989)
falsification asserting information contradictory to the true information or explicitly denying its validity
Loss of Information Fidelity
Alternative Goals (Sender)
Burgoon, 1996; Zhou, Burgoon, Nunamaker, & Twitchell, 2004; Rubin, 2010)
dodging, skirting issues by changing the subject or offering indirect responses
purposeful conscious communication
Distorted Perceptions (Receiver)
manipulation of the true information through exaggeration, minimization, & equivocation
concealment
-intended +intended
INTENTIONALITY TO DECEIVE
+ accurate
- Accurate
truth
misinformation
i.e., statements matching speaker's beliefs
unintentional reveal e.g., slips of the tongue
(Fox, 1983) e.g., erroneous statements
deception varieties e.g., falsification, concealment, equivocations (Burgoon & Buller, 1994)
omission
Table 2. Feature Set for Each Information Manipulation Variety (Inverted Table 1).
truth [- intended, + accurate, etc.] falsification [+ intended, - accurate, etc.] slip [+ intended, + accurate, etc.] misinformation [- intended, - accurate, etc.] Table 3. Gradients on Information Accuracy Continuum (plus unknown & not applicable values options). ? + accurate
~ somewhat accurate
- accurate unknown n/a
fabrication
lies dishonesty, cheating, fib
masks
overstatement
hypocrisy, back-stabbing, concealment
exaggerating or magnifying facts
collusion
Manipulation [enhanced deliberate noise]
INFORMATION ACCURACY
Hopper & Bell (1984)
lies or direct acts of
distortion
Distortions
Table 1. Example of a Two-Dimensional Information Manipulation Space.
O’Hair & Cody (1994)
equivocation
commission
Classification Methods Build the classification theory incrementally, by adding dimensions first & identifying their valence in each case (based on prior research) Create a multi-dimensional information manipulation space Use binary distinctions within each dimension: positive/negative valence Consider an example for a twodimensional conceptual distortion space (Table 1) Simultaneously, each variety of information manipulation, has its own coordinates within that space, where the coordinate values represent the variation on the continuum for each dimension. Invert to identify individual features of each manipulation varieties (Table 2). Each dimension is used with binary valence, but further continuum is implied. Some varieties will have unknown or not applicable valence (Table 3).
9. 10. 11. 12. Intention to Malicious Mislead CoDeceive Intentions operative
allowing a person to believe something untrue
omitting material facts
omission withholding all references to the relevant information
the deceiver and the target cooperate in allowing deception to take place
irony, make-belief, myth
evasion
“playings”
redirecting communication away from sensitive topics
joke, bluff, hoax, tease
concealment
crimes
hiding or masking true feelings or emotions
forgery, con, conspiracy
“fictions”
“unlies” distortion misrepresentation
Conclusions & Implications: Information Manipulation Classification Theory is a holistic classification of information manipulation varieties in a multi-dimensional conceptual space. The Theory 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
distinguishes varieties of information manipulation offers orthogonal facets that describe how information manipulation types vary presents a synthesis of empirically validated dimensions works as a feature-based checklist for conceptual LIS assessments can be adapted for computation with Natural Language Processing techniques implies portability & adaptation of existing to new technologies requires further validation & testing for interactions, exhaustively, & mutual exclusivity.
