提供对应的确凿事实是有效回应虚假信息的最直接方式。事实核查机制就是新闻从业者以此信念为指引建立的。然而，在实际操作中，新闻机构内部的事实核查仍可能带有自身的偏见。这对事实核查机制自身的发展提出了更高的要求。近年来，社交媒体平台上参与式文化的发展为事实核查新闻的实践创新提供了方向上的指引。有别于专业人员主导的“精英化”的核查模式，参与式事实核查强调将社交平台的用户卷入核查过程，通过汲取群体智慧完成事实核查。与传统机制相比，参与式事实核查极大提高了事实核查实践的透明度、效率水平和准确度，显示出自身独特的优越性。但同时，将大量公众纳入核查过程中，也意味着对参与者的新闻素养水平提出了很高的要求。目前，中国的参与式事实核查尚处探索阶段，实际效果并不明确。

本研究考察了参与式和非参与式两种形式的事实核查，分别对其进行实验操控。我们委托调查公司采用配额抽样，通过一项2×2×2×2的混合设计在线实验（N = 405），将被试分为四组，考察了在对受众的新闻素养予以不同干预措施的前提下使其分别接触不同的事实核查类型，是否以及如何可能影响他们对新闻的准确度评价、新闻分享意愿以及媒体信任。数据分析结果显示：事实核查能显著提高人们对真新闻的准确度评价，但同时也增加了人们误将假新闻信以为真的风险；参与式事实核查和新闻素养干预措施都可能令人们的新闻准确度评价趋向保守，但他们之间不存在显著的交互效应；事实核查类型和新闻素养干预对于人们新闻准确度评价和新闻分享意愿的影响效果不会在真、假新闻间产生显著差异。此外，对事实核查越熟悉、使用频率越高的人，分享新闻的意愿也更强。这些结果表明，受众参与和新闻素养干预可以在特定情况下影响受众对新闻的认知和态度，但两者之间具体的组合策略仍需深入探究，方能提高核查实践的整体效果。本研究根据这些发现，讨论了参与式事实核查的优势和局限，以及对未来学术研究和新闻创新的启示。

Providing corresponding conclusive facts is the most direct way to effectively respond to misinformation. Fact-checking mechanisms are established by journalists guided by this belief. However, in practice, internal fact-checking within news organizations may still have biases. This raises higher demands for the development of fact-checking mechanisms. In recent years, the growth of participatory culture on social media platforms has provided directional guidance for innovative practices in fact-checking journalism. Unlike the "elitist" checking model led by professionals, participatory fact-checking emphasizes involving social platform users in the verification process, leveraging collective intelligence to accomplish fact verification. Compared to traditional mechanisms, participatory fact-checking significantly enhances the transparency, efficiency, and accuracy of fact-checking practices, showcasing its unique advantages. However, involving a large public in the verification process also demands high levels of news literacy among participants. Currently, participatory fact-checking in China is still in an exploratory phase, and its practical effectiveness remains unclear.

This study examines both participatory and non-participatory forms of fact-checking, conducting experimental manipulations on each. We commissioned a survey company to use quota sampling for a mixed-design online experiment (2x2x2x2, N = 405), dividing subjects into four groups to explore how different fact-checking types and news literacy interventions might affect their accuracy in news judgment, willingness to share news, and trust in media under varying conditions. The data analysis reveals that fact-checking significantly improves people's accuracy in recognizing true news but also increases the risk of mistakenly believing false news to be true; both participatory fact-checking and news literacy interventions tend to make people's accuracy assessments more conservative, yet no significant interaction effect exists between them. The impact of checking type and news literacy intervention on news accuracy assessment and willingness to share does not differ significantly between true and false news. Additionally, the more familiar individuals are with fact-checking and the more frequently they use it, the more inclined they are to share news. These results indicate that audience participation and news literacy interventions can influence audience cognition and attitudes towards news under specific conditions, but the precise combination strategies of these elements require further exploration to enhance the overall effectiveness of fact-checking practices. Based on these findings, this study discusses the advantages and limitations of participatory fact-checking and the implications for future academic research and news innovation.