@UncensoredNews @Snoro @takvera

"The solution to that is that the description I post is now the description, which you the curators wrote. "

That's a good idea as it's important to show the context of the article (if it was being critically evaluated as "propaganda").

"You could also add a hashtag, say #propaganda, which I could use to make the article border red"

I will now use that hashtag. Though, and for example, the toot I wrote about The Guardian News 'mixed messaging' article - wasn't 'red flagging' propaganda. It was 'red flagging' misinformation.

We can conceptualize the information as empirical (e.g., research-based), misinformation ("mixed messaging"), and disinformation ("propaganda").

Will it help the search engine if I use the following hashtags?

#EmpiricalResearch (science) or
#misinfromation (mixed messaging) or #disinformation - (propaganda)

@kino

What you're supposed to "take" is to look at the peer-reviewed sources in those Wikipedia articles. I didn't list the original sources (500-char toot limit).

Feel free to list some peer-reviewed research that documents "extreme" bias in Wikipedia. If you've been banned from editing Wikipedia, someone else can propose adding your source and a summary of its key #EmpiricalResearch results.

#OpenScience #Reproducibility #PeerReview #Evidence #WPRS #WPNPOV #WPAGF #Wikipedia