This is very useful and interesting. Thank you for doing it. Can you explain the little circles with 1 and 2 in them, next to some items? For example, "cherry picking evidence"?
Thank you for putting this taxonomy together. The idea of a taxonomy will help guide the debate about mis & dis information. As a researcher in this space (national security and public safety domains) I have written several policy notes on this issue.
One issue I did not resolve is whether disinformation is a substitute for calling something a lie. And, is misinformation a confounding of facts (accidentally / intentionally)?
I am bringing this perspective up for several reasons. Are we losing the ability to express criticism in a constructive way and meaningful intention. I see the dilution of language, which appears to be leading to being conservative in our critique and also failing to speak up and clear articulate ways.
Thank you for the insightful comment; those are interesting points. I agree that language can both clarify and limit how we talk about manipulation. For me, this taxonomy isn’t just about tracking lies or misinformation; it’s about naming how the scientific enterprise can be manipulated. That manipulation is what bubbles up as disinformation.
This is very useful and interesting. Thank you for doing it. Can you explain the little circles with 1 and 2 in them, next to some items? For example, "cherry picking evidence"?
Those go into more granularity of the category. If you go to the figshare site with the full mapping, you can see those details.
If it's a test of intelligence, I just failed it :-) All I see on figshare is the png
Apologies for the delay. I just posted the expanded version (English only) of figshare https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.24566875.
Thank you for putting this taxonomy together. The idea of a taxonomy will help guide the debate about mis & dis information. As a researcher in this space (national security and public safety domains) I have written several policy notes on this issue.
One issue I did not resolve is whether disinformation is a substitute for calling something a lie. And, is misinformation a confounding of facts (accidentally / intentionally)?
I am bringing this perspective up for several reasons. Are we losing the ability to express criticism in a constructive way and meaningful intention. I see the dilution of language, which appears to be leading to being conservative in our critique and also failing to speak up and clear articulate ways.
Thank you for the insightful comment; those are interesting points. I agree that language can both clarify and limit how we talk about manipulation. For me, this taxonomy isn’t just about tracking lies or misinformation; it’s about naming how the scientific enterprise can be manipulated. That manipulation is what bubbles up as disinformation.