  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.
