Information integrity

Three kinds of information disorder

The distinction most widely used in research and policy separates false information by intent, and adds a third category for true information used to harm (Wardle and Derakhshan, 2017, for the Council of Europe):

• Misinformation — false information shared without the intention of causing harm. Most errors on otherwise careful pages are of this kind.
• Disinformation — false information knowingly shared to cause harm.
• Malinformation — genuine information shared to cause harm, for example private information exposed to damage someone.

Intent is rarely visible from a page alone, so DIGOSAR reviews the information first: whether it is accurate, current and fairly presented. Intent matters for how a report is recorded, not for whether an error is corrected.

Kinds of problem a page can have

Factual inaccuracy

A statement the evidence shows to be wrong: a wrong date, figure, name, attribution or finding.

Materially outdated information

A statement that was accurate when written and is no longer, where the change matters to a reader: a revised guideline, a withdrawn study, a superseded figure. “Materially” is the test — not every page needs every later detail.

Misleading presentation

Accurate parts assembled into a false impression: an omission that reverses the meaning, a chart with a distorted axis, a headline the text does not support, a conjecture presented as fact. The UK press code states the standard plainly: care must be taken not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, and comment, conjecture and fact must be clearly distinguished (IPSO Editors’ Code, Clause 1).

Judging a source

• Is it the original — the study, the dataset, the ruling — or a report of it?
• Who produced it, by what method, and with what interest in the result?
• Is it current, and has it been corrected, retracted or superseded?
• Do independent sources agree with it?
• Does it support the specific statement, or only the general topic?

Correction as a standard, not a concession

Serious publishers treat an open, honest corrections policy as part of their credibility, not a threat to it: it is one of the commitments of the International Fact-Checking Network’s Code of Principles, and the UK press code requires significant inaccuracies to be corrected promptly and with due prominence. DIGOSAR’s correction policy follows the same principle.

Wider frameworks

Journalism training (UNESCO’s handbook) and platform self-regulation in Europe (the 2022 Strengthened Code of Practice on Disinformation) address the same problem at other scales. DIGOSAR works at the scale of a single page: one reader, one statement, one piece of evidence at a time.

Sources

1. Wardle, C. and Derakhshan, H. (2017). Information Disorder: Toward an interdisciplinary framework for research and policy making. Council of Europe report DGI(2017)09. https://rm.coe.int/information-disorder-toward-an-interdisciplinary-framework-for-researc/168076277c
2. Independent Press Standards Organisation. Editors’ Code of Practice, Clause 1 (Accuracy). https://www.ipso.co.uk/editors-code-of-practice/
3. International Fact-Checking Network. Code of Principles: the commitments. https://ifcncodeofprinciples.poynter.org/the-commitments
4. Ireton, C. and Posetti, J. (eds.) (2018). Journalism, ‘Fake News’ & Disinformation: Handbook for Journalism Education and Training. UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000265552
5. European Commission. 2022 Strengthened Code of Practice on Disinformation. https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/2022-strengthened-code-practice-disinformation