How the Mar 31, 2026 review of Disinformation went
An independent reviewer read the finished page and checked it. Every finding it raised is listed below with what happened to it.
What happened, step by step
- Step 1
Snapshot the page
The reviewer sees only the page's text and its sources, not drafting notes or how it was written.
Which version of the page was reviewed: not recorded.
- Step 2
Checks, run independently
- Factual accuracy 3 findings
Which checks ran was not recorded, so a check with no findings is not listed.
- Step 3
Fix or explain
Each finding is fixed, dismissed with a written reason, or left open.
- Fixed1
- Open2
- Result
Findings open
The page stays live with its badge showing an open finding. It is reviewed again once the open item is addressed.
How this review ran
Recorded after the fact. The findings were reconstructed later by comparing the page's text, so the reviewer's original reasoning and the model used were not kept.
What this review does not do
It does not check every claim against its cited source, and a clean result is not a guarantee that the page is correct. Readers can report a problem on any page.
Report a problem on the pageAll 3 findings
Quoted text is from the version of the page the reviewer saw.Open · 2
- OpenFactual accuracy · medium
“emerged: "1920s"”
Why it was flagged
The frontmatter states the concept emerged in the 1920s, but the body of the same file states it 'has been documented in political and intelligence contexts since the mid-20th century.' These two claims directly contradict each other. The Soviet 'dezinformatsiya' apparatus is most firmly documented from the mid-20th century onward (e.g., the KGB's Department D, established 1959). While some Soviet information operations predate this, the 1920s framing is contested and conflicts with the file's own body text.
Why it is still open
No reason was recorded.
- OpenFactual accuracy · medium
“Disinformation is often designed to trigger strong emotional responses that generate high engagement, causing algorithms to promote the content more widely.”
Why it was flagged
The word 'causing' asserts a direct causal relationship between emotional content and algorithmic promotion. While this association is frequently cited in research, the causal mechanisms vary significantly by platform and algorithm, and this framing overstates the certainty of the relationship. Prefer 'is associated with' or 'coincides with' rather than 'causing.'
Why it is still open
No reason was recorded.
Fixed · 1
- FixedFactual accuracy · low
Before “The concept originates from Soviet-era "dezinformatsiya" and has been documented in political and intelligence contexts since the mid-20th century.”
Why it was flagged
This claim conflicts with the frontmatter field 'emerged: "1920s"'. One of the two must be incorrect. The body says 'mid-20th century' while the frontmatter implies early 20th century. The file should be internally consistent and use a single, sourced date range.
What was done
Quote no longer present in the source file (inferred by backfill; original rationale unrecorded).