Talk:The Disinformation Project

Improving this article
Probably time to start a discussion about how to get rid of these tags on the article. Happy to collaborate with others for sharing of ideas or resources. I feel the tags are a little harsh, but remain open to hearing other's opinions. Realitylink (talk) Realitylink (talk) 02:29, 30 June 2023 (UTC)


 * There are no supporting citations for the section on Transgressive Transitions. This is particularly jarring in the paragraph discussing criticisms. Completely unclear why a lack of discussion of violence at the Posie Parker protest is a significant omission for a paper on disinformation. Was the violence caused by disinformation? If this is indeed the argument, we are left none the wiser because there are no citations. 125.238.160.96 (talk) 10:06, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree that this section had to go. No idea where it came from. Realitylink (talk) 19:20, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Reduced overtagging; suggestions for improvement
I removed most of the tags as they were clearly in violation of OVERTAG. I selected the two most obvious/likely tags to remain, and put them at the top.

Some of this content is good and the topic is good, but the language needs to be simplified for a more generic audience. It is very hard to follow, has very long sentences and esoteric words that are not explained. It is in a style which I call (rightly or wrongly) "academic gobbledegook". Please simplify the language. Then I'm sure you will be better able to tell where and how the article needs improving.

Maybe add an infobox for projects. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 08:23, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I cut 10,000 characters by summarizing the content and removing the last two sections (essentially unsourced). Added infobox. I think we can legitimately remove the remaining tags now. Robincantin (talk) 22:55, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes that is much tidier and more succinct. Realitylink (talk) 01:42, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Material in Criticism section
A bit a an edit war on the page, I'm hoping we can have the discussion here rather than in the edit history.

Anonymous blogs clearly fall short of guidance on Self-published sources. Removing those four citations and the two paragraphs they support.

I think the source about the defamation suit can stay, taking for granted the interview behind the paywall says what it appears to be saying. I'm adding a second source on this even though it's not great either and moving the paragraph up - it's now alone in its section, and criticism should be integrated in the text anyway, not isolated at the end of an article. I recommend that those interested follow court proceedings in actual news media (if any) to get better sources in the future. Robincantin (talk) 12:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with the defamation suit being covered, and agree it's better integrated into the article than in a separate section.- gadfium 18:51, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Lluq (talk), I'm inviting you again to join the conversation here on this Talk page rather than reverting other editors' changes. You're citing guidance that was rejected (Blogs_as_sources). The only common use for blogs is people writing about themselves. Clearly, anonymous blogs are useless. Robincantin (talk) 20:38, 13 November 2023 (UTC)