← Page history
Review report Review 2 of 4 · Aug 1, 2026

How the Aug 1, 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

  1. 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.

  2. Step 2

    Checks, run independently

    • Factual accuracy 1 finding

    Which checks ran was not recorded, so a check with no findings is not listed.

  3. Step 3

    Fix or explain

    Each finding is fixed, dismissed with a written reason, or left open.

    • Open1
  4. 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

Reviewer model
Not recorded
Independence
Did not write the page; saw only the finished text
Fixes made by
Not recorded
Approved by
Not recorded
Why it ran
Not recorded

This review covered several pages at once.

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 page

The finding

Quoted text is from the version of the page the reviewer saw.

Open · 1

  • OpenFactual accuracy · medium
    “The concept originates from Soviet-era "dezinformatsiya," with a formal disinformation department established within the Soviet intelligence apparatus in the early 1920s.”

    Why it was flagged

    This is a widely repeated but historically contested claim. Most historical accounts place the founding of the Soviet 'Special Disinformation Office' (Dezinformbyuro) under the OGPU in 1923, not 'the early 1920s' generally, and even that date is disputed among historians — some scholars argue the specific 'department' narrative is a later Cold War-era simplification rather than a precisely documented institutional fact. Presenting this as settled fact with a specific timeframe overstates the certainty of the historical record; the claim should be attributed to specific sources or softened (e.g., 'according to some historical accounts') rather than stated as established fact.

    Why it is still open

    No reason was recorded.

This site is under active development. Content and features may change.