  Misinformation is an ever increasing problem that is difficult to solve for
the research community and has a negative impact on the society at large. Very
recently, the problem has been addressed with a crowdsourcing-based approach to
scale up labeling efforts: to assess the truthfulness of a statement, instead
of relying on a few experts, a crowd of (non-expert) judges is exploited. We
follow the same approach to study whether crowdsourcing is an effective and
reliable method to assess statements truthfulness during a pandemic. We
specifically target statements related to the COVID-19 health emergency, that
is still ongoing at the time of the study and has arguably caused an increase
of the amount of misinformation that is spreading online (a phenomenon for
which the term "infodemic" has been used). By doing so, we are able to address
(mis)information that is both related to a sensitive and personal issue like
health and very recent as compared to when the judgment is done: two issues
that have not been analyzed in related work. In our experiment, crowd workers
are asked to assess the truthfulness of statements, as well as to provide
evidence for the assessments as a URL and a text justification. Besides showing
that the crowd is able to accurately judge the truthfulness of the statements,
we also report results on many different aspects, including: agreement among
workers, the effect of different aggregation functions, of scales
transformations, and of workers background / bias. We also analyze workers
behavior, in terms of queries submitted, URLs found / selected, text
justifications, and other behavioral data like clicks and mouse actions
collected by means of an ad hoc logger.
