In this work, we examined how fact-checkers prioritize which claims to inspect for further investigation and publishing, and what tools may assist them in their efforts. Specifically, through a series of interviews with 23 professional fact-checkers from around the world, we validated that harm assessment is a central component of how fact-checkers triage their work. First, we clarify what aspects of misinformation they considered to create urgency or importance. These often revolved around the potential for the claim to harm others. We also clarify the processes behind collective fact-checking decisions and gather suggestions for tools that could help with these processes. In addition, to address the needs articulated by these fact-checkers and others, we present a five-dimension framework of questions to help fact-checkers negotiate the priority of claims. Our FABLE Framework of Misinformation Harms incorporates five dimensions of magnitude -- (social) Fragmentation, Actionability, Believability, Likelihood of spread, and Exploitativeness -- that can help determine the potential urgency of a specific message or post when considering misinformation as harm. This effort was further validated by additional interviews with expert fact-checkers. The result is a questionnaire, a practical and conceptual tool to support fact-checkers and other content moderators as they make strategic decisions to prioritize their efforts.

翻译：在这项工作中，我们研究了事实核查人员如何优先选择待进一步调查和发布的声明，以及哪些工具可辅助其工作。具体而言，通过对全球23名专业事实核查人员的系列访谈，我们验证了危害评估是事实核查人员分诊工作的核心要素。首先，我们阐明了他们判定误导性信息紧迫性或重要性的考量维度——这些考量通常围绕声明对他人造成潜在危害的可能性。同时，我们梳理了集体事实核查决策背后的流程，并收集了有助于这些流程的工具建议。此外，为回应上述事实核查人员及其他相关方的需求，我们构建了一个包含五个维度的框架性问题，用以协助事实核查人员协商确定声明优先级。我们提出的"FABLE误导性信息危害框架"涵盖五个量级维度——（社会）碎片化程度、可行动性、可信度、传播可能性及利用性——该框架可在将误导性信息视为危害时，帮助判断特定信息或帖子的潜在紧迫性。这一研究成果通过额外的事实核查专家访谈进一步得到验证。最终形成的问卷工具既具实践性又具概念性，可支持事实核查人员及其他内容审核员在战略决策中优先配置工作资源。