Editorial. Crowdsourced validation is not fact-checking: Understanding the difference

This Editorial article examines the growing shift by digital platforms from professional fact-checking to crowdsourced systems such as Community Notes, arguing that these approaches should not be treated as equivalent. The authors introduce a key conceptual distinction between verification, associated with professional fact-checking, and validation, characteristic of crowdsourced models. Professional fact-checking is presented as an institutionalized journalistic practice grounded in transparent methodologies, evidence-based reasoning, and expert authority. In contrast, crowdsourced validation relies on distributed user participation and algorithmic aggregation of judgments, emphasizing consensus and contextualization rather than definitive truth claims. 

The paper situates this shift within broader transformations in platform governance, highlighting how scalability challenges, financial pressures, and political contestation have led platforms to reduce reliance on external fact-checkers. While crowdsourced systems can reduce misinformation spread and increase user trust, they often depend on prior professional verification and lack reproducibility, evidentiary rigor, and clear epistemic accountability. 

The Editorial is the introduction paper of the Special Issue of Communication & Society (Vol. 39, No. 1) titled «From Fact-Checking to Community Notes: Structural Shifts in the Fight Against Disinformation on Social Media», promoted by IBERIFIER and guest-edited by the three co-authors of this paper.