Automated fact-checking is often presented as an epistemic tool that fact-checkers, social media consumers, and other stakeholders can use to fight misinformation. Nevertheless, few papers thoroughly discuss how. We document this by analysing 100 highly-cited papers, and annotating epistemic elements related to intended use, i.e., means, ends, and stakeholders. We find that narratives leaving out some of these aspects are common, that many papers propose inconsistent means and ends, and that the feasibility of suggested strategies rarely has empirical backing. We argue that this vagueness actively hinders the technology from reaching its goals, as it encourages overclaiming, limits criticism, and prevents stakeholder feedback. Accordingly, we provide several recommendations for thinking and writing about the use of fact-checking artefacts.

翻译：自动化事实核查常被描述为一种认知工具，可供事实核查人员、社交媒体用户及其他利益相关方用于打击虚假信息。然而，鲜有论文深入探讨其具体实现方式。我们通过分析100篇高被引论文，对与目标用途相关的认知要素（即手段、目的和利益相关方）进行标注，发现以下问题：忽略部分要素的叙事普遍存在；许多论文提出的手段与目的存在矛盾；所建议策略的可行性鲜有实证支撑。我们认为这种模糊性实际上阻碍了技术实现其目标——它助长过度宣称、限制批判性讨论，并阻止利益相关方反馈。为此，我们就如何思考与撰写事实核查工具的使用问题提出了若干建议。