How the Oct 26, 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
- Bias 2 findings
- Tone 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.
- Fixed2
- Dismissed1
- 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
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 5 findings
Quoted text is from the version of the page the reviewer saw.Open · 2
- Needs researchBias · low
“Efforts to combat disinformation include: - Fact-checking organizations - Platform content moderation - Media literacy education - Government disclosure requirements - Academic research and monitoring”
Why it was flagged
The response measures are listed only as efforts to "combat" disinformation, with no mention of the documented disputes over them. These include criticism of fact-checker and moderator neutrality, concerns about censorship or government pressure on platforms, and disagreement over who decides what counts as false. The knowledge base covers free speech debates, and the section implies approval of these measures without that context. The "Measured Spread and Responses" section adds nuance on effectiveness, but not on the contested legitimacy of the measures.
Why it is still open
Adding the omitted context needs sourced documentation of the disputes over moderation and fact-checking (e.g. the Murthy v. Missouri litigation, platform-moderation criticism); writing it without sources would invent claims. Not fixed here.
- Needs researchBias · low
“gained renewed prominence in American political discourse in the 2010s, particularly following the 2016 U.S. presidential election and investigations into foreign interference campaigns.”
Why it was flagged
The history is framed through Soviet origins and foreign interference, and the page never mentions domestic actors or Western governments as sources of disinformation. The page also does not note that "disinformation" is itself a contested label, sometimes applied to claims that are politically disputed rather than demonstrably false. The result is a one-directional picture of who produces disinformation.
Why it is still open
The sentence itself is accurate; the finding is a claim of omitted context (domestic and Western-government examples, the contested use of the label), which needs sourced material to add. Left unchanged.
Fixed · 2
- FixedTone · low
Before “creating an appearance of grassroots support”
After “creating the appearance of independent, widespread support”
Why it was flagged
'Grassroots' is a loaded term from the project's advocacy-terms list, and the sentence asserts the intended effect as fact. A more neutral version would be 'creating the appearance of independent, widespread support', optionally with a gloss that this practice is commonly called astroturfing.
What was done
Replaced 'grassroots' with neutral descriptive wording; astroturfing remains named in the Common Techniques list, so the term stays findable.
- FixedTone · low
Before “Separate information ecosystems make disinformation harder to counter”
After “Separate information ecosystems can make disinformation harder to counter”
Why it was flagged
This states a causal claim flatly and could be read as the project's own conclusion. Hedge it ('can make') or attribute it to research, as the body text does for other effects.
What was done
Hedged the verb in the connection description.
Dismissed · 1
- Dismissed — won't fixTone · low
“Heightened political tensions”
Why it was flagged
Vague, evaluative wording with no measurable referent. Replace it with a documented, observable effect, such as measured affective polarization or specific incidents. Drop it if no source supports it.
Why it was dismissed
Low severity; the bullet sits in a list already framed as associations researchers have identified, with a closing caveat that causal mechanisms are debated. Replacing it with a specific measure needs a source, and deleting it would remove content without cause.