Template talk:Disinformation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Focus on 2016/2017 US Politics[edit]

This navigation template seems to be motivated by the 2016/2017 uproar over fake news, and was later expanded to include alternative facts. Of course, while this is a valid and important cultural phenomenon to document, I'm not sure this template is the place to do so. Limiting a "misinformation and disinformation" series to only recent events strikes me as a violation of WP:NPOV, as it puts undue weight on recent transgressions in the much larger history of misinformation.

I see three ways to resolve this issue:

  1. Delete the template. Solidify in-text internal links between explicitly related articles in the box.
  2. Expand the template to include broader material; other historical lies and general pages.
  3. Rename the template to something more specific, maybe Template:Misinformation in the 21st Century.

BenKuykendall (talk) 18:54, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

@BenKuykendall: Good post.
I'm not sure whether alternative facts should be included in the template. Maybe it should be removed for the reasons you named / simply because it's not widely/extensively used. There could also be a separate template-section for items such as alternative facts so that it's removed from the "general" links at the top.
Limiting a "misinformation and disinformation" series to only recent events strikes me as a violation of WP:NPOV, as it puts undue weight on recent transgressions in the much larger history of misinformation.
Agree (except that I don't think it would violate WP:NPOV but simply be inappropriate).
  • Oppose 1: the template is very useful, of interest and relevant
  • Support 2: any specific links you have in mind here? For (some of) these another template-section could be created as well (such as "Historic", "Historic techniques", "Historic incidents" or alike)
  • Irresolute oppose 3: I don't think this template should just be about new such phenomena also I don't think splitting it by timespan would be possible in an appropriate way - I'm not sure about it though
There are many more links that could potentially be included in the template. Maybe it needs a separate talk page entry for it so that we could decide on inclusion criteria or additional sections / other measures for dealing with this. This is also relevant to suggestion #3. For examples of such links see the "See also"-section of the new article Internet manipulation.
--Fixuture (talk) 10:57, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

No, this was widely covered in sources, I don't see a reason to exclude it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Do RSs talking about 'misformation' and 'disinformation' mention alternative facts? WP:OR "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article [slash template, which is supposed to be 'misformation' and 'disinformation'], and directly support the material being presented." NPalgan2 (talk) 06:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
They do. Type in misinformation "alternative facts" into google. This is sort of trivial.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
If your only source is Google statistics, this is a clear-cut case of recentism that should be excluded: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&q=%22alternative%20facts%22 . As such, I'll remove it. Calbaer (talk) 17:23, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
"Fake News, Alternative Facts, and the world of misinformation... Buzzfeed's media editor Craig Silverman leads a discussion about fake news trend and the future of media accuracy." at UChicago's Institute of Politics; The Guardian and Chicago Tribune used the phrase in a headline back in January... this is very flimsy stuff compared to the mountains of stuff you'd get for other entries like 'false flag' or 'gaslighting' that don't carry with them WP:RECENTISM and Anglo-American focus concerns. NPalgan2 (talk) 06:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

The template image[edit]

Graphic on Fake News by VOA.jpg

User:MagicatthemovieS removed the image File:Graphic on Fake News by VOA.jpg saying This image to too politically charged for its own good. and This image is all misinformation/disinformation surrounding Trump, not misinformation/disinformation in general. Is there are more neutral image to be found?. I reverted it but have to admit that I didn't saw the news-headlines in the red background which are all about Trump in one way or another and thought he was concerned about the Facebook-logo at first. Also User:Laurdecl reverted it as well saying This image is relevant as Facebook played a major part in spreading misinformation. Take it to the talk page.

So after seeing those headlines in the background I think he has a point. It would be best if those headlines would be neutral. However, those headlines are pretty small and are probably impossible to read with the image's current size with most readers not opening it up in full-size and I think the image in general is pretty good an don't think that a more appropriate image exists in the commons. If people have suggestions for images to replace it with they could make a new talk page entry / suggest it here. But at the very least until then (consensus on a new image) imo the image should stay.

--Fixuture (talk) 11:14, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Misinformation is a universal phenomenon. Illustrating it with headlines about Trump and the 2016 election is completely absurd. NPalgan2 (talk) 00:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
It is apt and far better than leaving it empty. Also it was created by VOA, and the text isn't visible on a quick glance either. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 00:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
If something is bad it's worse than nothing. Whether it was created by VOA is irrelevant. The size of the text is irrelevant, what the text says is terrible. This is the equivalent of illustrating the article on 'Falsehood' with a picture of Donald Trump. NPalgan2 (talk) 00:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Raised this question at WP:NPOVN NPalgan2 (talk) 01:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
No, that is reductio in absurdum or a straw-man argument. Neutrality isn't about avoiding any controversy. The graphic is very representative of the fake news — you can look to the sources we use at fake news and disinformation. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 01:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Both of those articles discuss fake news across centuries and continents. It's WP:RECENTISM in any case. NPalgan2 (talk) 01:21, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
No, it's just more relevant.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep existing image. It illustrates the concept of "fake news" and is appropriate. I don't see an immediate and obvious connection to 2016 election given the image size and blurriness. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:13, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Remove image. This is terrible as a piece of graphic art, does not illustrate anything, and misinforms (sic!) the reader. One could think that Facebook promotes big lie. No, it does not. People do. My very best wishes (talk)
The involvement of facebook is not at all disputed — and critics have been very harsh when implicating facebook and twitter as driving the whole 2016 phenomenon. This image was created by an independent reliable source, and that it is related is in fact WP:RS-supported. Carl Fredrik talk 08:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Remove image. Clutters the articles. Serves no purpose. No way a single pic may illustrate such a diverse phenomenon. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

This is not a vote so far, if you're going to list keep or remove start an RfC — otherwise you are ignoring everyone else who did not "vote" because they chose to engage in civil discussion. The argument that the image clutters is ridiculous, we use images to guide interest, and this teeny tiny thumbnail does not clutter anything. If anyone actually cared about the headlines enough they could be blurred very easily, but no one actually sees them. Carl Fredrik talk 08:41, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Fortunately for the project, most changes on pages do not require RfC. The image looks simply like a dark red square on most pages and does not really illustrate anything. That's the reason. How the dark red square is going to "guide interest"? My very best wishes (talk) 14:01, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Image is NOT neutral but carries political message!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:46, 7 April 2017 (UTC)


Shouldn't Truthiness be listed in this template, too? --Austrian (talk) 23:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Footer template[edit]

Changed to footer template so as to not be so obtrusive and take over article space in article main body text. Sagecandor (talk) 00:59, 2 June 2017 (UTC)