Talk:Malinformation

Removed bad examples of Malinformation
I removed the following sentence "Examples of malinformation include phishing, doxing, and swatting." Phishing is very unlikely to be malinformation because phishing attempts are almost always full of false information, such as claiming to be from your company IT director or some wealthy prince. Swatting almost always lying and or grossly exaggerating circumstances to 911 operators. I suppose you could make a case that Doxing is malinformation. I've not seen it called that before, but the other two are clearly poor examples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:243:CC01:8140:61B9:41:F63C:816 (talk) 18:14, 9 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree wholeheartedly. I think Doxing only is a case of Malinformation and the article should be edited to reflect that. Dangdude11 (talk) 16:23, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Reference says otherwise. Reliable sources trump what editors believe. Canterbury Tail talk 22:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Logically malinformation cannot include phishing and swatting.
 * "Malinformation is truth used to inflict harm on a person, organisation or country." (emphasis added)
 * "Phishing is a form of social engineering where attackers deceive people into revealing sensitive information." Phishing.
 * "Swatting is a criminal harassment tactic of deceiving an emergency service" Swatting
 * "Deceive" is defined as "to cause to accept as true or valid what is false or invalid." https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deceive
 * Thus the inclusion of phishing and of swatting is not warranted and I believe it to be true. Dangdude11 (talk) 22:25, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The reliable sources disagree with you. What you believe to be true isn't important. Canterbury Tail talk 22:44, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The one "reliable source" mentioned seeks to define misinformation in a contradictory way. Malinformation cant be the hurtful use of true information and the use of false information at the same time. Using false information by definition excludes the conduct from being classified as malinformation. If a source contains a logical impossibility then it cannot be considered reliable. Compare round squares. https://philosophy.hku.hk/think/meaning/possibility.php#:~:text=Something%20is%20logically%20impossible%20if,to%20dissolve%20gold%20in%20water.
 * Did you read my comment or just the part where I say "believe?"Did you look at the sources cited including Wikipedia articles. How can a logical impossibility be considered reliable? Dangdude11 (talk) 22:55, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If it makes you feel better, another source is the 2021 paper MISINFORMATION, DISINFORMATION, AND MALINFORMATION: CLARIFYING THE DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES IN DISINFODEMIC TIMES. "As a malinformation device, phishing is a type of misuse of personal and/or confidential information." The authors are trying to define malinformation as "true" info used for "mal" intent, so I guess they are saying that if you have someone's true identity info you can use it in a bad way (seems like a stretch to me, too). Also see Chart 2 for a definition and Figure 2 for examples. Fx6893 (talk) 08:52, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * In case of phishing, I think they mean "information obtained by phishing", for example Vovan and Lexus. I don't think "revenge porn" or doxxing are any valuable information to the public. Hacking, whistleblowers, social engineering, information from domestic and foreign intelligence services. Spies and investigative journalists. Obviously. a mixed bag and yes, in past laws were passed to protect all these. But it's not how Wikipedia or credible sources view "media smarts". 5.173.113.137 (talk) 10:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Media Smart Libraries
— Assignment last updated by Kelseycronin (talk) 23:26, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Mal information
When did it happen and what exactly happened? 2409:4060:300:38E0:0:0:96A:D0A4 (talk) 03:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The article tells us that malinformation can include phishing, catfishing, doxing, swatting and revenge porn. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 03:14, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Article should be deleted
As a political scientist, I'll say that the criticisms of this article are correct, and the sources are not good ones. If the article cannot be repaired (since previous efforts appear to have been reversed), it would be much better deleted than left here; the present article is a mix of misleading, confusing, and just false. Bill7436 (talk) 20:50, 18 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree. It is contentious and the sources are very poor. According to the website SCImago Journal Rank, the journal that much of this wiki page relies on has an h-score of just 3. It is the only source cited in the Psychology Today article to mention "phishing, catfishing, doxing, swatting and revenge porn," and the first two sentences only cite this article as the source. Given these reasons it is inappropriate to keep the first two sentences, but deletion of the entire article should be seriously considered. Neugeou (talk) 08:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I took a deeper look at the origin of the phrase, and it is not clear even from reading the creator's own words how it is in any way different from disinformation. The definition of disinformation according to the Oxford dictionary is "false information which is intended to mislead, especially propaganda issued by a government organization to a rival power or the media." The examples the creator gives in his interview explaining the concept are also examples of disinformation, because it involves substantially changing or misrepresenting something in a way so that it becomes no longer truthful. In his interview, he states:
 * "That’s my PhD project. On the side, I’m following a few other avenues. One of these concerns information disorder, which I have already published on. Malinformation is my own innovation, and I am currently engaged in trying to emphasise why it is important. It refers to genuine information whose context is changed, usually to inflict harm on or manipulate someone. This is a definition applicable to experiences many people are having now. For instance, I propose to define deepfakes as a combination of disinformation and malinformation.
 * The best example of malinformation would be when you change the context of a photograph to give the impression that it has taken place in another time or place. We’ve seen many instances of this being used in the Syrian Civil War or in the Ukraine War. Another case is revenge porn, where the change of context from private to public is the sign of malicious intent.
 * I recently wrote an article for WIRED Magazine about how CCTV cameras are being used to manipulate people. If you only change the time label on CCTV footage, this can be highly manipulative. The case I describe is the death of a young Iranian girl who had participated in the ongoing protests. The state identified this as suicide, producing CCTV footage as evidence. It is not clear to me whether it was completely staged, which would put it into the disinformation category, or if the footage is genuine and solely the time label was manipulated." Neugeou (talk) 09:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)