Loading...
 

explode propaganda

To "explode propaganda" is claimed to be a wiki best practice, based on the civic best practice of intellectual self defense advocated by Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman.

other approaches


This competes directly with the conceptual metaphor theory of George Lakoff in which the appropriate defense is to examine the operant metaphor, especially any ontological metaphors. The term:namespace is the advisable way to do this.

For instance the attack and defense metaphor is heavily used and almost always signals propaganda is being created. e.g. term:War on Terror.

identifying propaganda


There is no universal objective test: as with truth, propaganda can be identified only subjectively. That being said - be bold in propaganda tagging: false positives are less dangerous than false negatives.

how to explode propaganda.


  1. create/rename a page for the propaganda with "propaganda:" before the title. (e.g. propaganda:war on terror)
  2. paste the complete text of the propaganda, to be exploded to the page, add a cite link to the source and save. (which stores the original intact version at least once into the history
  3. use the text of the propaganda to be exploded as the issue statement
    • as should be done for any controversial page.
  4. develop an IPA based on the propaganda, focus on why do they want people to think this and what is the underlying truth (commonly held).

labelling propaganda in a wiki


Any pages that are developed in a wiki that are somewhat, but not mostly propaganda should be edited to remove or attribute the perceived propaganda. If you attribute rather than remove, keep in mind the rules for ad hominem remarks.

If the person who finds it doesn't have time, the page can be given a "spin" warning (found on the notices page).

Any pages that are developed in a wiki that are hopelessly devoted to one point of view should be renamed with that point of view after it in brackets, e.g. " (critical view)" added to the end, and then exploded (see above). If the person who finds it doesn't have time, or necessary privileges, the page can be given a "propaganda" warning (found on the notices page).

has your contribution been labeled propaganda?


Critical remarks about individuals (ad hominem) that aren't widely shared are among the worst edits found in an open wiki. However by contrast, critical views that are very widely shared but not often stated are often among the best. See Emperor's New Clothes.

To criticize the action instead is a more reliable approach: Character assassinations are part of politics as usual but can backfire, creating a celebrity or sympathy.

Personal criticism in the form of mockery or humor or fake news have their place, but may develop into a smear campaign

In open politics, blatant distortions of the truth should be summarily removed from view, unless they are cited from alternate sources. To cite their experts to back a critical point of view is the best approach.

For example, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart contrasted a September 26, 2005 lie by Bush Administration shill Scott McLelland that Bush had himself always believed that it was essential to conserve energy to avoid reliance on foreign oil. But Stewart was able to find a May 7, 2001 clip by Ari Fleischer stating exactly the opposite, that Bush believed firmly that using a lot of energy was part of the "American way" and that "our lifestyle is not negotiable".

Clearly Bush was not willing to negotiate with Hurricane Katrina and so had to change his mind. The lie was easy to expose simply by the contrast of the two. A similar piece had assembled footage to make it obvious that the elected President Bush contradicts Governor Bush, the fellow who ran for office in 2000. This is among the most effective ways to explode propaganda.