Disinformation was a Warfare good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Disinformation is within the scope of WikiProject Espionage, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of espionage, intelligence, and related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion.EspionageWikipedia:WikiProject EspionageTemplate:WikiProject EspionageEspionage articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CultureWikipedia:WikiProject CultureTemplate:WikiProject Cultureculture articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
The main objections to the previous merger nomination have been fixed; now, the large sections about Soviet and Russian misinformation have been split off into separate articles. Currently, some of the same images are used in both articles. Some of the defense measures against disinformation attacks, such as education and awareness, are actually applicable to non-coordinated disinformation in general. fgnievinski (talk) 05:41, 15 October 2023 (UTC) fgnievinski (talk) 05:41, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First, thanks for splitting the article on post-soviet disinformation
I do not think that a merge between disinformation attack and disinformation is correct. Disinformation, according to the Harvard Shorenstein Center means two things: (1) one is a research stream to understand media manipulation (which includes the use of fake news, astroturfing, and propaganda), and (2) it is a type of covert activity usually led by intelligence agencies (but not only). Therefore, I think that keeping the disinformation article separate can help people understand that disinformation is a general set of actions, as well as a concrete activity. See for instance, the 2018 report by the European Commission, defining disinformation at a more broader level that can include private firms seeking profit, not only state-level actors.
I do agree that the disinformation article should make a better job at defining disinformation (orchestrated campaign aiming for media/social media manipulation) differently from an disinformation as a targeted attack. MexFin (talk) 06:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that there is a case for distinguishing between multiple types of disinformation, yes. However, It is probably better if it can be in the same article. I agree that the start of the current version of the article is all about military intelligence and the box is about warfare. As a result, the beginning is mostly about state-sponsored disinformation. However, there is also a discussion within the article about disinformation on social media, which may emerge from multiple actors, including states and private individuals. As per the European Commission and Harvard U. references above, disinformation can be for both harm or profit.
The limitation of your suggestion is that disinformation is always covert, which means that determining its origin is not always possible. In other words, it is not always possible to determine if it is state-sponsored or not. My suggestion: Keep the article on disinformation, but re-section it so that it starts with its history anchored on state-sponsored disinformation. Then, it can have a large section on social media disinformation. Perhaps if both sections are large enough, they can have their own pages. MexFin (talk) 06:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am listening to Dark Arts: Disinformation talk in Wikipedia North America conference. The original article helped understand how disinformation attacks worked and now the article cites 240 works. This article focuses on attacks rather than the broader field of disinformation. This puts a practical spin on disinformation (how to inoculate against disinformation, handle disinformation, how attacks work, and avoid triggering biases and preconceived views and provides examples of these talks. So I think this article should focus on practical ways to recognize and handle intentional disinformation attacks that benefit bad actors. This education is important and is separate from disinformation in general, which may be inadvertent and not an attack. LoveElectronicLiterature (talk) 15:36, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also want to thank you for working on the Disinformation article and helping to reorganize it. This is a great improvement.
I think that keeping the current articles for disinformation attack and disinformation separate is a better choice than merging them. Disinformation attack is already a lengthy article. It uses examples of multiple types of disinformation, making the point that this is a broader issue that affects science, politics, and society generally as well as warfare. That's important to understanding how disinformation works in the age of social media. The same "players" can be using multiple tactics in all those areas, and in some cases working for multiple sides.
@MaryMO (AR) If the two articles are not merged, the difference between the two concepts should be made more explicit; currently, "disinformation attack" covers a lot of "disinformation" beyond just attacks. fgnievinski (talk) 23:56, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's easy to dicifer "DISINFORMATION" page by definition is main topic we're as "Attack" is a use of said subject so completely separate. MrHugepiles (talk) 20:04, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm a new editor (but not a new user of Wikipedia).
Disinformation is similar to propaganda, so linking to the Propaganda article makes sense conceptually and for usability.
There are significant journalistic efforts to combat disinformation, so it makes sense conceptually to link to some existing articles about such efforts.
I have created a draft for Disinformation expert. This is the common name for people who have expertise in identifying and studying disinformation. Thriley (talk) 01:02, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MexFin: Greetings! In this revert, you removed the McIntyre book from the "Further reading" section with the edit summary "Reverting decontextualized citation. Please use the reference within if if its relevant". I don't think any of the entries in the "Further reading" section are referred to by citations in the article, because that is what "Further reading" sections are for - works that are just recommended for readers who want to know more, whether generally or on a specific subtopic. (Though Wikipedia:Further reading explains that for clarity, recommended reading can have duplicate citations if the article has lots of footnotes.) -- Beland (talk) 23:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Beland hello! you are right that further reading can be simply more information. However, further reading usually is reserved for classical works or really important ones. This book is from last year. There are some works on the disinformation topic that are becoming really seminal, but only time will say if this specific book will do so.
I am no against citing the book as such. I am simply recommending adding it in context so that the reader can understand where it fits in. MexFin (talk) 10:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Editors most frequently choose high-quality reliable sources. However, other sources may be appropriate, including: historically important publications; creative works or primary sources discussed extensively in the article; and seminal, but now outdated, scientific papers." MexFin (talk) 10:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how this book is any less seminal or important than the Pacepa book from 2013. It certainly seems a lot more comprehensive than the short articles currently listed. The author is an academic and keeps getting interviewed in the press as an expert on the topic, so it seems like a good source of up-to-date facts and policy proposals. I don't understand what "context" you think would be helpful; do you have a specific suggestion? -- Beland (talk) 17:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
