Community-Driven API and AI Writer Design for Openly Scaling Community Notes

Community Notes, a bridging-based crowd-sourced fact-checking system, has emerged as a new mechanism for moderating misleading information on social media and has been adopted by major platforms including X, Facebook, Instagram, Threads, and TikTok. Since its introduction, there has been an open question about what role AI could play in scaling and optimizing the system. Recently, X extended its Community Notes system by introducing Collaborative Notes: notes initially drafted by an LLM and iteratively refined based on feedback from human contributors. In this work, we systematically analyze the complete corpus of 19,146 collaborative notes and 211,850 instances of human feedback. First, we develop a taxonomy of human suggestions for improving AI-generated note drafts and find that suggestions involving factual corrections and additional context are most likely to be incorporated, while subjective policy judgments rarely are. Second, we examine changes in helpfulness across versions of collaborative notes and find that human feedback leads to more helpful notes, with the greatest impact coming from suggestions that challenge the main claim in the previous draft, particularly when submitted by more active contributors. Finally, we find that although collaborative notes improve through human feedback, they reach helpful status and are shown on the platform at lower rates than human-only or AI-only notes, with limited human participation emerging as a key bottleneck. Nevertheless, rather than serving as a weaker substitute, collaborative notes tend to play a complementary role, predominantly targeting posts that do not attract human-only or AI-only notes. Our analysis provides an initial description of efforts to use AI to improve crowdsourced content moderation in a real-world moderation system and outlines pathways for future improvements to such features.

Community-based fact-checking that relies on cross-consensus is expanding rapidly on social media platforms. However, the delay and low-ratio of cross-consensus community fact-checks rated by human contributors remains a significant challenge. To address this, we first created ComRate, a large-scale dataset comprising 2.5 million community notes and over 209 million ratings sourced from $\mathbb{X}$. We then propose MultiCom, a persona-guided multi-agent rating framework for community note evaluation. MultiCom simulates diverse rater population by clustering contributors in a matrix-factorized rater space and prompting persona agents to generate structured assessments based on the official community notes rating schema. These agents output structured and explainable judgments, such as confidence, agreement signals and reasons. An out-of-fold calibrated aggregation algorithm combines features such as raw votes and diagnostic reason signals for reliable prediction. Extensive evaluations demonstrate that MultiCom outperforms alternative methods, achieving an average accuracy of 84.7% (balanced accuracy 68.3%, macro-F1 60.1%) on the evaluation set.

Teachers, conference chairs, and public readers all judge writing from limited evidence, seeing only a finished document and not the process that produced it. Final text alone cannot reveal whether a document was produced through human typing, AI generation, or mixed human-AI collaboration. Existing process-tracking tools help, but many are tied to host-document histories, provide coarse activity records, and offer limited control over the writing environment. Humanly is a writing platform that makes the writing process itself the evidence. Users configure writing environments for personal documents or assigned tasks and draft in a workspace that records writing activity and in-platform AI assistance. Humanly can package a completed session into a sealed writing certificate with configuration-aware anomaly behavior review. It can support writing scenarios such as course assignments, peer review, and personal certification. Our user study shows that Humanly is helpful across roles, and a red-teaming study shows that the Humanly Typing Detector distinguishes human hand typing from automated typing.