MIT researchers studied every verified true and false story shared on Twitter across more than a decade and found false stories reached 1,500 people roughly six times faster than true ones.
What the study found
Published in Science in 2018, the study by Vosoughi, Roy, and Aral found false news was 70 percent more likely to be reshared than accurate reporting, across every category studied. The researchers' own read on why was not bots, it was people, false stories tend to be more novel and more surprising, and people share novel, surprising things more readily than accurate, familiar ones.
Why waiting is not neutral
Staying quiet until you have the full, careful, accurate version feels responsible. It also concedes the entire head start to whatever version reaches people first, true or not, because by the time the accurate account arrives, the first version has already set the shape everything else gets measured against.
Where to start
This is a case for not treating silence as the responsible default while something false or distorted about you or your work is already circulating, not license to spread unverified information faster to win the race.
A short, plain, early correction, even a partial one, costs less than letting an inaccurate version calcify into the assumed baseline.
Reading how much of a correction a specific situation actually calls for, versus when staying quiet really is the better move, is a judgment only you can make about the stakes involved. What this gives you is the reason speed matters more than most people assume once something inaccurate starts moving.
There is a specific way to correct a false or distorted version of events early without sounding defensive about it, and it is worth having ready before the next time something inaccurate starts circulating.