Content uploaded by Karen Santos-d'Amorim
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Karen Santos-d'Amorim on Sep 03, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
MISINFORMATION, DISINFORMATION, AND
MALINFORMATION: CLARIFYING THE DEFINITIONS
AND EXAMPLES IN DISINFODEMIC TIMES
Informação incorreta, desinformação e má informação: Esclarecendo definições e exemplos em
tempos de desinfodemia
Karen SANTOS-D’AMORIM
Mestre e doutoranda em Ciência da Informação
Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Departamento de Ciência da Informação, Recife, Brasil
karen.isantos@ufpe.br
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2043-3853
Májory K. Fernandes de Oliveira MIRANDA
Doutora em Informação e Comunicação em Plataformas Digitais – Universidade do Porto
Professora adjunta na Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Departamento de Ciência da Informação, Recife, Brasil
majory@gmail.com
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3523-7756
A lista completa com informações dos autores está no final do artigo
ABSTRACT
Objective: It describes and analyzes the theoretical-practical incidences of misinformation, disinformation, and
malinformation, including but not limited to the Information Science framework. Besides, it aims to outline an understanding
of these three concepts based on 16 arrangements interconnected according to their intentionality.
Methods: To build discourses and descriptions of the phenomenon of misinformation and its derivations, we applied the
hermeneutical, rhetorical, and phenomenological principles of intentionality as our work methods.
Results: As a result, we present some theoretical incidences to clarify these three concepts, in addition to outlining and
characterizing, according to the intentionality, 16 mis-, dis-, mal- information arrangements associated with these three
concepts: bias, propaganda, retracted papers, conspiracy theories, misleading representation in maps, charts and
graphics, fake news, clickbait, hoax, satire or parody, imposter website, fake reviews, phishing, filter bubbles, and echo
chambers.
Conclusions: We highlight that the complexity that permeates the various fields in the present situation is due to the
difficulty of reaching a consensus on the semantic definition of the concepts of information, misinformation, and its
disambiguations since these concepts have various properties.
KEYWORDS: Misinformation. Disinformation. Malinformation. Disinfodemic. Infodemic. Intentionality.
RESUMO
Objetivo: Descreve e analisa as incidências teórico-práticas da informação incorreta (misinformation), desinformação
(disinformation) e má informação (malinformation), incluindo, mas não se limitando ao arcabouço da Ciência da
Informação. Além disso, objetiva delinear uma compreensão desses três conceitos a partir de 16 arranjos interligados de
acordo com sua intencionalidade.
Método: Para construir discursos e descrição do fenômeno da desinformação e suas derivações, aplicamos a
hermenêutica, a retórica e os princípios fenomenológicos da intencionalidade como métodos de trabalho.
Resultados: Como resultados, apresentamos 14 incidências teóricas com o objetivo de esclarecer esses três conceitos,
além de delinear e caracterizar, de acordo com a intencionalidade, 16 arranjos de desinformação associados a esses três
conceitos, sendo eles: viés de confirmação, propaganda, artigos retratados, teorias da conspiração, representação
enganosa em mapas, quadros e gráficos, notícias falsas, caça-cliques, trote, sátira ou paródia, website impostor, revisões
falsas, phishing, filtros-bolha e câmaras de eco.
Conclusões Destaca-se a complexidade que permeia os vários campos da conjuntura atual relacionada à dificuldade de
um consenso sobre a definição semântica dos conceitos de informação, desinformação e suas desambiguações, uma
vez que estes conceitos também possuem inúmeras propriedades.
PALAVRAS-CHAVE: Informação incorreta. Desinformação. Má Informação. Desinfodemia. Infodemia. Intencionalidade.
Encontros Bibli: revista eletrônica de biblioteconomia e ciência da informação, Florianópolis, v. 26, p. 01-23, 2021.
Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina. ISSN 1518-2924. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5007/1518-2924.2021.e76900
Ensaio
2
Encontros Bibli: revista eletrônica de biblioteconomia e ciência da informação, Florianópolis, v. 26, p. 01-23, 2021.
Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina. ISSN 1518-2924. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5007/1518-2924.2021.e76900
1 INTRODUCTION
The history of humanity has been marked and divided by wars. The information
society had its boom in the development of telecommunications, information technologies,
and informatics based on information and knowledge, but now it is witnessing the opposite
— the era of information wars (MCLUHAN, 1970; STENGEL, 2019). In this circumstance,
the significance evolution of misinformation meaning, associated with his delivery forms and
intentionalities, has given rise to two disambiguation, which are associated with the
information phenomenon itself — disinformation and malinformation.
Conspiracy theories, fake news, clickbait, rumors, and hoaxes are just a few
examples of information disorders (WARDLE; DERAKHSHAN, 2018). In the current
pandemic scenario of COVID-19, for instance, the mass mis-, dis- information practices,
have made reappearance or given rise to new words, such as “infodemic” and “disinfodemic”
(POSETTI; BONTCHEVA, 2020; ZAROCOSTAS, 2020). In this context, still in February
2020, when the peak of deaths and false news has not yet reached the current proportions1,
Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, World Health Organization Director-General, at the
Munich Security Conference, had already realized the impact of false and inaccurate
information by saying that “we’re not just fighting an epidemic; we’re fighting an infodemic”.2
(MUNICH…, 2020, p. 6).
According to Posetti and Bontcheva (2020, p. 2), the term disinfodemic refers to “the
falsehoods fuelling the pandemic and its impacts” because “of the huge ‘viral load’ of
potentially deadly disinformation that is described by the UN Secretary General as a poison,
and humanity’s other ‘enemy’ in this crisis”. In this new scenario, Baines and Elliott (2020,
p. 16) highlight that the first lessons learned of the COVID-19 infodemic are that: “(i) the
infodemic is unprecedented in its size and velocity; (ii) unexpected forms of false information
are emerging daily; and (iii) no global consensus exists on how best to classify the types of
false messages being encountered”. In addition to other examples, one can assume that
the world is facing a revolution in the post-custodial paradigm, which this essay will refer to
as the (mis)informational explosion.
1 As of February 2021, 2,533,323 deaths have been confirmed worldwide (According the COVID-19
Data Repository by the Center for Systems Science and Engineering (CSSE) at Johns Hopkins University –
available at https://www.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6).
2 According to Oxford Languages, infodemic is “a surfeit of information about a problem that is viewed
as being a detriment to its solution”. To see more, visit: https://public.oed.com/updates/new-words-list-april-
2020/
3
Encontros Bibli: revista eletrônica de biblioteconomia e ciência da informação, Florianópolis, v. 26, p. 01-23, 2021.
Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina. ISSN 1518-2924. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5007/1518-2924.2021.e76900
Going back a step in the history, we can observe that the exponential growth of
information after World War II led to the creation of the metaphor information explosion
coined in Vannevar Bush's 1945 paper As We May Think. Far ahead of his time, Bush
proposed a hypothetical proto-hypertext system, called “memex” (memory extender), that
would combine artificial intelligence through associative indexing, information storage, and
retrieval, which is the reason that Vannevar Bush is considered the precursor of Information
Science (BARRETO, 2002). Vannevar Bush's memex interpreted today by what would be
the digital computer and its connections between other machines through the Web has
made important advances possible. On the other hand, it has become a large superhighway
spreading false information (FLORIDI, 1996). In this context, Akers et al. (2019, p. 1) points
out that the “technology is increasingly used — unintentionally (misinformation) or
intentionally (disinformation) — to spread false information at scale, with potentially broad-
reaching societal effects”. In this sense, nowadays, to trigger an information war is needed
“only computers and smartphones and an army of trolls and bots.” (STENGEL, 2019, p. 16).
Based on this understanding, we can point that the phenomena of mis-, dis-, mal-
information grows as diverse and different communities explore the possibilities of creating,
exploring, and editing information, which is part of the own democratization of access to
knowledge, production, dissemination of information and freedom of expression, guaranteed
by The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in its Article 19. On the other hand, “but
when the whole environment of public discourse becomes occupied and dominated by
falsehood, it frustrates the primary purpose of freedom of expression.” (EUROPEAN
PARLIAMENT, 2019, p. 79).
Indeed, is important to highlight that mis-, dis-, mal- information are not new
phenomena, but its intensification, associated with the alterations in the information
ecosystem and its development in the post-truth era indicates the importance of this object
of study in Information Science.
Thus, the purpose of this essay is (1) to describe and analyzes the theoretical-
practical incidences of mis-, dis-, mal- information, mainly, but not limited to the Information
Science framework, exploring both hermeneutics and rhetoric to build discourses from the
ontological analysis and description of the phenomenon of misinformation and its
derivations; (2) outline and characterize 16 mis-, dis-, mal- information arrangements
associated with these three concepts: bias, propaganda, retracted papers, conspiracy
theories, misleading representation in maps, charts and graphics, fake news, clickbait,
4
Encontros Bibli: revista eletrônica de biblioteconomia e ciência da informação, Florianópolis, v. 26, p. 01-23, 2021.
Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina. ISSN 1518-2924. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5007/1518-2924.2021.e76900
hoaxes, satire or parody, imposter websites, fake reviews, phishing, political use of sensitive
information, misuse of personal/confidential information, filter bubbles, and echo chambers.
In this exploratory essay, we applied the hermeneutic, rhetorical, and
phenomenological principles of intentionality as works methods. Among the various
reasoning for analysis, these work methods stand out due to their pragmatic characteristics.
Among them, the motivations, and circumstances, such as the political, cultural, and
economic scenarios of information production, come to constitute and consolidate the facts.
Seminal studies using hermeneutics, for instance, have become fundamental steps in the
establishment of the theoretical foundations of Information Science, and precedents of
studies of mis-, dis-, mal- information (CAPURRO, 2000).
2 BACKGROUND
Mis-, dis-, mal- information cases can be found in many scenarios. As political
strategy emerges, for instance, in scenarios such as the 2016 election campaign of the
United States of America, Brexit in the United Kingdom, and, more recently, in the 2018
presidential elections in Brazil. Akers et al. (2019) classify that the current mis- and dis-
information situation is due to six factors: (1) democratization of content creation, (2) rapid
news cycle and economic incentives, (3) wide and immediate reach and interactivity, (4)
organic and intentionally created filter bubbles, (5) algorithmic curation and lack of
transparency, and (6) scale and anonymity in online accounts. To this extent, is also
important to highlight that social media and other technological tools have changed and
accelerated the dissemination of several issues related to the democratic public sphere
(KARLOVA; FISHER, 2013; HINDS, 2019).
In an endeavor to understand some current mis-, dis-, mal- information phenomena,
Hinds (2019, p. 14) points out that “a major problem nowadays, which still lacks research,
is false information in private chat groups, either on WhatsApp or Facebook”. Hinds (ibid.,
p. 16) adds that “the victory of Bolsonaro in Brazil was highly influenced by a disinformation
campaign going on in private chat groups of WhatsApp”. Indeed, in a report released by
Quartz3, Brazil was one of the countries that the rate of affirmation that “Facebook is the
internet” was higher, with 55%, revealing literacy problems of even bigger, and regulatory
problems. Figure 1 summarizes some key events, based on the last years, that allow us to
3 Available on: https://bit.ly/3hSIVos Access on May 19, 2020.
5
Encontros Bibli: revista eletrônica de biblioteconomia e ciência da informação, Florianópolis, v. 26, p. 01-23, 2021.
Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina. ISSN 1518-2924. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5007/1518-2924.2021.e76900
perceive the use of mis-, dis-, and mal- information as a new war strategy that have direct
impacts on society.
Figure 1 – some historical facts about mis-, dis-, mal- information over the last years
Source: The authors (2020).
However, mis-, dis-, mal- information tactics have been used since 1939, during World
War Two, such as Operation Bodyguard. The plan was intended to deceive the German
High Command as to the time and location of the D-Day invasion indicating that guns
are not always the best way to win a war (FALLET, 2001; FALLIS, 2009; ROMERO-
RODRIGUÉZ, 2014).
In its etymological sense, the inclusion of the word misinformation in dictionaries can be
found from the year 1949 in the Russian language dictionary “Словарь русского
языка”. In this context, the word dezinformatsiya or dezinformatsia (дезинформация)
had by its first definition the action to mislead public opinion through the use and
propagation of false information. This meaning, until then, defined by the Soviets,
referred to the operations of intoxication carried out by the capitalist countries against
the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (URSS) (FALLET, 2001; ROMERO-
RODRIGUÉZ, 2014). The mythological horse of Troy, narrated in Homer's “Iliad”, also
serves as an example of disinformation. A huge wooden horse as a symbol of peace,
which was hollow and full of Greek soldiers against the Trojans.
From the Information Science perspective, the interrelationship between information
and misinformation domains is observed in Capurro (1992, p. 5) by saying "information
and misinformation are, in some way, pseudonyms" and that "Information Science is the
6
Encontros Bibli: revista eletrônica de biblioteconomia e ciência da informação, Florianópolis, v. 26, p. 01-23, 2021.
Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina. ISSN 1518-2924. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5007/1518-2924.2021.e76900
science of information and misinformation" (ibid., p. 6). According to Capurro (1992)
“information science, conceived as a hermeneutic-rhetorical discipline, studies the con-
textual pragmatic dimensions within which knowledge is shared positively as
information and negatively as misinformation particularly through technical forms of
communication” (CAPURRO, 1992, p.6).
In this rationale, Schrader (1986, p. 179 apud CAPURRO) further explains that the
definition absence about the negative form misinformation and its derivatives such as
“lies, propaganda, misrepresentation, gossip, delusion, hallucination, illusion, mistake,
concealment, distortion, embellishment, innuendo, deception” in the Information
Science, may “leads to a ‘naïve model of 'information man’, which sometimes takes the
form of decision-making man or uncertainty man”. So, the current informational context,
based not only on true information but also on misinformation, disinformation, and
malinformation, places us before a new paradigm and the need to study this domain.
3 CLARIFYING THE DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES
In a broad sense, misinformation can assume many meanings. Hence, this essay
highlights three disambiguation: misinformation, disinformation (FLORIDI, 1996,
2005, 2007, 2011; FALLIS, 2009, 2011, 2014, 2015; KARLOVA; LEE, 2012; KARLOVA;
FISHER, 2013) and malinformation (BURBULES, 1997; WALKER, 2019; WARDLE;
DERAKHSHAN, 2017, 2018; BAINES; ELLIOTT, 2020).
As a starting point, it is important to highlight two main features related to the definition
of information and its associations with truth and intentionality, whose propositions
have a direct effect on the interpretations of these concepts. In this regard, perhaps, the
best-known discussions around the ontological-semantic properties of information – that
Søe (2019) called by a metalinguistic disagreement – about misinformation,
disinformation, and its relations with veracity, falsity, and neutral are led by Luciano
Floridi and Don Falis. In this arena, Søe (2019) summarizes that Fallis (2009, 2011,
2014, 2015), as well as in the discussions previously held by Fox (1983), Fetzer (2004),
Scarantino and Piccinini (2010) defend that information is alethically neutral, where any
meaningful data counts as information and does not require truth. On the other hand,
Floridi (2007 p. 40) states that “information encapsulates truth, and hence that false
information fails to qualify as information at all”. Søe (2019, p. 7), by analyzing what she
7
Encontros Bibli: revista eletrônica de biblioteconomia e ciência da informação, Florianópolis, v. 26, p. 01-23, 2021.
Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina. ISSN 1518-2924. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5007/1518-2924.2021.e76900
calls that Floridian Dilemma4, argues that “Floridi’s distinction between information as
true, and misinformation and disinformation as false, collapses due to the possibility of
true misinformation and true disinformation”, as well as Karlova and Fisher (2013, p. 3)
argue that Fallis' analysis “builds further support for a subjective, constructionist view of
information, as articulated by Hjørland (2007)”.
Looking beyond the verbal dispute5, we agree that the crucial point for defining
the three concepts (misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation) is to discuss
them around their intentionality, since that all the three concepts are associated with the
intentionality of the action.
Miranda (2018), for instance, states intentionality has an intentional state (need,
desire, belief), which, in turn, has an adjustment direction. The adjustment direction
determines the conditions of satisfaction of a subject when he reaches a propositional
content, that is, the desired information. Manipulations are carried out so that the
conditions of satisfaction are adjusted to the propositional content. But some
statements of propositional content, even if they have intentionality, can be false.
Having intentionality does not guarantee that the conditions of satisfaction are
achieved, as the information referred to by the propositional content may not exist. In
this case, manipulation occurs as an action applied to the variables of mis-, dis-, mal-
information. Besides, that information is directed by intentionality stemming from the
notions of network and background, which in turn, determines the conditions of
satisfaction and the need for adjustments to determining the direction of information
mapping (MIRANDA, 2019).
Still about the intentionality, Ilharco (2004, p. 46) discusses information problems and
indicates an association of the phenomenon with the action, questioning “whether the
action precedes the information or the opposite?”6. Indeed, there is a relationship
between communication and information according to the Mathematical Theory of
Information created in the 1940s by Shannon and Weaver, for the reduction of
uncertainty, associated with the practices of information retrieval.
Thus, Chart 1 summarizes the theoretical incidences used to clarify the features
contained in mis-, dis-, mal- information concepts.
4 “the dilemma that the notion of semantic information as inherently truthful and independent of
informees, as opposed to misinformation and disinformation as false semantic content” (SØE,
2019, not paged).
5 According the Chalmers’s framework seen in Søe (2019).
6 In the original: “A acção precede a informação ou o contrário?”.
8
Encontros Bibli: revista eletrônica de biblioteconomia e ciência da informação, Florianópolis, v. 26, p. 01-23, 2021.
Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina. ISSN 1518-2924. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5007/1518-2924.2021.e76900
Chart 1 – Theoretical incidences about mis-, dis-, and mal-information concepts
Author
Author's understanding
Misinformation
Fox (1983)
“misinformation is a species of information, just as misinforming is a
species of informing … informing does not require truth and information
need not be true; but misinforming requires falsehood, and
misinformation must be false” (p. 193).
Floridi (2005)
“false information”, i.e. misinformation, is merely pseudo-information” (p.
352).
Floridi (2011)
“misinformation is ‘well-formed and meaningful data (i.e. semantic
content) that is false” (p. 260).
Karlova and Lee
(2012)
“misinformation may also be uncertain (perhaps by presenting more than
one possibility or choice), vague (unclear), or ambiguous (open to
multiple interpretations). Misinformation, however, may still be true,
accurate, and informative, depending on the context, and therefore, meet
many of the same qualifications accepted for information” (p. 3).
Fallis (2014)
“Inaccurate information (or misinformation) can mislead people whether
it results from an honest mistake, negligence, unconscious bias, or (as in
the case of disinformation) intentional deception” (p. 1).
Disinformation
Fallis (2009)
“First of all, in order to disinform, you have to intend to deceive someone”
(p. 3).
“It is also worth noting that you must intend to deceive and not just intend
to disseminate false information” (p. 3).
Floridi (2011)
“Disinformation’ is simply misinformation purposefully conveyed to
mislead the receiver into believing that it is information” (p. 260).
Floridi (2011)
“Disinformation arises whenever the process of information is defective.
This can happen because of: (a) a lack of objectivity, as in the case of
propaganda; (b) a lack of completeness, as in a case of damnatio
memoriae; and (c) a lack of pluralism, as in the case of censorship” (p.
509).
Karlova and
Fisher (2013)
“Disinformation is deliberately deceptive information. The intentions
behind such deception are unknowable, but may include socially-
motivated, benevolent reasons […] and personally-motivated,
antagonistic reasons” (p. 3).
Fallis (2014)
“Disinformation is a type of information” (p. 137).
“disinformation is particularly dangerous because it is no accident that
people are misled. Disinformation comes from someone who is actively
engaged in an attempt to mislead” (p. 136).
Malinformation
Walker (2019)
“genuine information that is shared to cause harm” (p. 232).
Burbules (1997)
“potentially dangerous or damaging information; inappropriate
information; information people feel uncomfortable with in openly
accessible circulation” (p. 113).
Wardle and
Derakhshan
(2018)
“information, that is based on reality, but used to inflict harm on a
person, organisation or country” (p. 44).
Baines and
Elliott (2020)
“‘malinformation’ requires both intention and equivalence and often
involves a repurposing of the truth value of information for deceptive
ends” (p. 12).
Source: The authors.
9
Encontros Bibli: revista eletrônica de biblioteconomia e ciência da informação, Florianópolis, v. 26, p. 01-23, 2021.
Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina. ISSN 1518-2924. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5007/1518-2924.2021.e76900
Hence, Karlova and Fischer (2013, p. 5), knowing that “human intentionality is
typically vague and mercurial”, and that “the diffusion of inaccurate and deceptive
information may be motivated by benevolent or antagonistic intents, but the nature or degree
of the intent cannot be determined solely by behaviour or discourse”, offer five features for
evaluation of information, misinformation, and disinformation through their informativeness.
Chart 2 shows these adapted features adding the malinformation concept as discussed,
observing these same characteristics.
Chart 2– Features of mis-, dis-, mal- information
Information
Misinformation
Disinformation
Malinformation
True
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y
Complete
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Current
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Informative
Y
Y
Y
Y
Deceptive
Y/N
Y/N
Y
N
Caption: Y = Yes; N = No; Y/N = Could be Yes and No, depending on context and time.
Source: Adapted from Karlova and Fisher (2013).
For interpretative purposes, based on the understandings presented in the Chart 2,
we assume in this essay that (1) misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation are a
type of information, regardless of the characteristics indicated by Karlova and Fisher (2013)
– if are true, complete, current, informative, deceptive, or not, as already foreseen in Fox
(1983), Karlova and Lee (2012), and Fallis (2014). Hence, (2) misinformation is imprecise
information, open to multiple comprehensions and uses; (2) disinformation is information
deliberately deceptive, intending to deceive or not; and (3) malinformation is the sensitive
information (true) that is strategically used to cause advantage. The next subsection
provides some examples.
3.1 Misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation examples
The universe of this essay is composed of 16 types of dis/mis/mal-information
arrangements associated with these three concepts. Figure 2 illustrates these 16
arrangements, according to the intentionality of each one, including, but not limited to
considerations made by Fallis (2014, 2015) Rubin, Chen, and Conroy (2016), Wardle and
Derakhshan (2017, 2018), Disinformation… (2018), and Zannettou et al. (2019).
10
Encontros Bibli: revista eletrônica de biblioteconomia e ciência da informação, Florianópolis, v. 26, p. 01-23, 2021.
Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina. ISSN 1518-2924. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5007/1518-2924.2021.e76900
Figure 2 – Practical incidences about mis-, dis-, mal-information according to their intentionality
Source: The authors (2020).
3.1.1 Disinformation arrangements
Fake News. Since the U.S. presidential elections in 2016, the term fake news has
gained prominence as a disinformation device and even named word of the year 2017
by Collins dictionary. Another example involving fake news in political campaigns
happened recently in the Brazilian presidential elections. Tardáguila, Benevenuto, and
Ortellado (2018) found that among 100,000 images disclosed in WhatsApp, only 8%
were true, and more than half contained misleading or flatly false information. According
to Barclay (2018, p. 6), fake news is “information that is completely fabricated for the
purpose of either making money or advancing a particular political or social agenda,
typically by discrediting others”. However, it is important to emphasize that the term fake
11
Encontros Bibli: revista eletrônica de biblioteconomia e ciência da informação, Florianópolis, v. 26, p. 01-23, 2021.
Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina. ISSN 1518-2924. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5007/1518-2924.2021.e76900
news has been used by politicians “as a weapon to attack a free and independent press”
as Wardle (2019, n.p.) points out. In this sense, Rubin, Chen, and Conroy (2016) classify
three types of fake news: exposed fabrications, hoaxes, and news satire. An exposed
fabrication example is the yellow press and its unverified articles, which, through
clickbait (Figure 3a) and sensationalist articles, aim to increase its traffic and
consequently generate profit.
Hoaxes. According to Rubin, Chen, and Conroy (2016, p. 3), a hoax is “another type of
deliberate fabrication or falsification in the mainstream or social media”. Rumors, fake
graphics or tables, false attribution of authorship, dramatic images, etc., are examples
of hoaxes (Figure 3b).
News satire or parody. Can be found as humorous news websites based on irony,
often in a mainstream format, such as 'The onion' website in Figure 3 (c). In some cases,
if readers are not aware of the humorous slant intended, such news may be a source of
misinformation. It is important to point out that they should not be mistaken for an
imposter website, whose deliberate intention is to deceive or confuse by copying a
traditional media source, such as can be observed in Figure 3 (d).
Figure 3 – Clickbait, hoax, satire, and imposter website examples
Source: Screenshots of (a) Facebook advertisement (2017); (b) www.gov.uk (2019); (c)
The Onion webpage at Facebook (2020); (d) verafiles.org/articles/vera-files-fact-check-news-
dutertes-icc-trial-fake (2017).
12
Encontros Bibli: revista eletrônica de biblioteconomia e ciência da informação, Florianópolis, v. 26, p. 01-23, 2021.
Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina. ISSN 1518-2924. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5007/1518-2924.2021.e76900
Fake reviews. Regarding fake reviews as a disinformation tool, examples can be found
in e-commerce platforms (KUMAR; SHAH, 2018) where they are used to influence the
purchasing of products and services. In this respect, the authors have demonstrated
that humans are not always able to discern misleading opinions. Cases of fake reviews
can also be found in the peer-review process of science communication, such as the
fraudulent peer-review case that led to three articles from the same authors being
retracted (ENAGO, 2018).
3.1.2 Mis-, dis-information arrangements
The categorization of the following mis- and dis-information arrangements was
conducted considering the ambiguity of their intentionality:
• Bias. The phenomenon of bias and its inter-relations has been studied for a long time
and in several areas. According to Gackowski (2006, p. 735), “bias may occur in all
types of information, although in passive information its source is ignorance; hence,
it is classed as an aspect of misinformation”. Some examples are belief bias,
confirmation bias, and anchoring.
• Propaganda. As a mis/dis-information device, propaganda is closely correlated with
the memory-history binomial because it is commonly used as a dangerous persuasive
political tool to shape a large-scale opinion. The discourse made to influence people
has an intrinsic relationship with the knowledge of reality so that it can differentiate
what is true and what is not. According to Fallet (2001), this form of manipulation uses
Pavlov’s theory of conditioned response that pairs a stimulus with a conditioned
response. Through the emotional appeal used to trigger emotions at the expense of
reason, propaganda has become a modern and postmodern weapon. An example of
this was the Nazi propaganda that by using anti-Semitic defamation wiped out millions
of Jews. It is important to highlight that propaganda does not always take on a
negative connotation and is not always a lie (FALLET, 2001). It is also important to
highlight that propaganda “does not necessarily have to originate from a government
or other organization” (BARCLAY, 2018, p. 34).
• Retracted Papers. As to the mis/dis-information phenomenon in scholarly
communication, retracted papers demonstrate that mis/dis-information is not
exclusive to political and economic scenarios or daily life (SANTOS-D’AMORIM;
13
Encontros Bibli: revista eletrônica de biblioteconomia e ciência da informação, Florianópolis, v. 26, p. 01-23, 2021.
Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina. ISSN 1518-2924. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5007/1518-2924.2021.e76900
MIRANDA; CORREIA, 2020). Retractions present two approaches according to
intentionality: unintentional (misinformation — e.g., methodological, analysis, and
data error) and intentional (disinformation, — e.g., plagiarism, image manipulation,
fabrication, and forged authorship). Articles retracted by deliberate fraud as well as
honest mistakes that may be on a large scale undermine confidence in science
(JAMIESON, 2018). However, this is not a new phenomenon. In the scientific field,
one of the first significant frauds became known as the Piltdown man, where about
100 years ago a hominid fossil was forged by joining fragments of an orangutan's jaw
to a human skull that was supposed to reveal facts about the evolution of man. This
fraud took about 40 years to be detected and its author was only identified in 2016.
One hundred years after his death, about 500 works were backed by this false
discovery, which hampered studies such as the Australopithecus africanus in 1920,
the first one of a true humanoid species, delaying the development of science for
several years (MILLAR, 1972).
• Conspiracy theories. At first glance, conspiracy theories might sound pathetic,
however, they “have the potential to cause harm both to the individual and the
community”, (KLEIN; CLUTTON; DUNN, 2019, p. 1), just as the anti-vaccine
movement. For instance, Ball (2020, p. 1) highlights that the “anti-vaccine movement
could undermine efforts to end coronavirus pandemic”. Thus, the popularization of
social media and internet forums increases and amplify discussions about conspiracy
theories, challenging even already consolidated scientific discoveries, such as the
flat-Earth conspiracy.
• The incorrect use of maps, charts, and graphics. Sampling bias, truncated axis
distortion, deceptive visualizations, (PELTIER, 2011), changes in time span (HUFF,
1993), and 3D Optical illusion (CUDMORE, 2014) are examples of misleading
representations with the attempt to support arguments. In this context, Tufte's Lie
Factor (TUFTE, 1983), can be used to warrant the integrity of a graphic, represented
by the equation
Hence, according Tufte (1983, p. 57)
if the Lie Factor is equal to one, then the graphic might be doing a reasonable job of
accurately representing the underlying numbers. Lie Factors greater than 1.05 or
less than .95 indicate substantial distortion, far beyond minor inaccuracies in plotting.
14
Encontros Bibli: revista eletrônica de biblioteconomia e ciência da informação, Florianópolis, v. 26, p. 01-23, 2021.
Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina. ISSN 1518-2924. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5007/1518-2924.2021.e76900
The logarithm of the Lie Factor can be taken in order to compare overstating (log LF
> 0) with understating (log LF < 0) errors. In practice almost all distortions involve
overstating, and Lie Factors of two to five are not uncommon.
Nowadays, the incorrect use of charts and graphics, particularly, can be found in the
current pandemic scenario, many times used to shape public opinion on certain topics of
interest, and are constituted as an object of study increasingly studied in different fields.
3.1.3 Dis-, mal- information and mis-, mal-information arrangements
In this subsection, the arrangements can assume a dis-, mal- information way or/and
a mis-, mal-information way:
Phishing. As a malinformation device, phishing is a type of misuse of personal and/or
confidential information. Theft of personal information by copying a popular website and
inserting personal data has become a common tool. According to Apte, Palshikar, and
Baskaran (2019), identity theft, attempt to tarnish a reputation, profile cloning, denying
access to e-mail, and financial loss are, for example, results of phishing.
Filter bubbles. As dis/mal-information device, filter bubbles (algorithm-based) can
amplify and at the same time isolate viewpoints and narratives spreading
misinformation. In the information flood age (GLEICK, 2011), filter bubbles appear as a
tool for content personalization through invisible algorithms provided by web search
engines and social media, creating a personal ecosystem of information (PARISER,
2011). Figure 4 (a) represents an example of this, reported by Kelly and François (2018),
illustrating the US political spectrum on the eve of the 2016 elections on Twittersphere.
In this figure, it is possible to see a clear polarization, represented by the small colored
groups that divide opinions on not such small lines between the left-wing activists and
the main conservatives.
Echo chambers. Echo chambers emerge as one increasingly has an emotional
relationship with information rather than a rational one (WARDLE, 2019). According to
Karlsen (2017, p. 258) “people have a tendency to favour information that reinforces
their preexisting views”, thus, as a result of this selective exposure, echo chambers can
maximize ideological polarization, reinforcing different types of intolerance as well as
spreading false information (KUMAR; SHAH, 2018). An observational study made by
Dunn et al. (2015, p. 7) involving a network of 30,621 users in Twitter found that “twitter
users who were more often exposed to negative opinions about the safety and value of
HPV vaccines were more likely to tweet negative opinions than users who were more
15
Encontros Bibli: revista eletrônica de biblioteconomia e ciência da informação, Florianópolis, v. 26, p. 01-23, 2021.
Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina. ISSN 1518-2924. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5007/1518-2924.2021.e76900
often exposed to neutral or positive information”, as shown in Figure 4 (b). The orange
clusters represent a majority of negative tweets, cyan clusters represent the users
exposed to mostly neutral/positive tweets, while the gray clusters represent those users
not exposed to HPV vaccine tweets.
Figure 4 – Real examples of filter bubbles (left) and echo chamber (right)
Source: Kelly and François (2018) (left) and Dunn et al. (2015) (right).
• Political use of sensitive information. Nowadays it is possible to identify highly
complex relationships involving mis/mal-information and dis/mal-information
devices at the same time, as observed in the ongoing pandemic scenario of the
Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS-CoV-2) caused by the new coronavirus
(COVID-19), where some political opinions have affected the scientific criteria for
containment measures worldwide, as in the case of vaccines, for example.
“Exaggerations to make a point, or purposely inflating or deflating numbers”
exemplified by Keiser (2019, p. 27) reminds the case of Brazil, in which the Federal
Government - in what they called a change of methodology - changed the format of
the disclosure of the pandemic statistics in the country (PHILLIPS, 2020).
• Misuse of personal/confidential information. A malinformation device example
was the Cambridge Analytica and Facebook data scandal that involved the data
collection that influenced the U.S. Presidential Election Results 2016. The
unprecedented data breach involved a harvest of private information over 50 million
Facebook profiles. Thus, based on this matter, issues about user data privacy and
data protection have been raising to the present (CADWALLADR; GRAHAM-
HARRISON, 2018; ISAAK; HANNA, 2018).
16
Encontros Bibli: revista eletrônica de biblioteconomia e ciência da informação, Florianópolis, v. 26, p. 01-23, 2021.
Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina. ISSN 1518-2924. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5007/1518-2924.2021.e76900
4 CONCLUDING REMARKS
In conclusion, based on the considerations discussed in this essay, as an attempt to
clarify mis-, dis-, mal-information concepts, (1) we presented 14 theoretical definitions
distributed among the three concepts discussed, exploring hermeneutics, rhetoric, and the
phenomenological principles of intentionality as works methods to build discourses and
descriptions of the phenomenon of misinformation and its derivations; and (2) we outlined
an understanding of practical misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation concepts,
based on 16 arrangements interconnected with these three concepts, according to your
intentionality.
Given the complexity that permeates the various fields of the current conjuncture, as
well as the difficulty of a consensus on the semantic definition of information, as already
seen in Shannon (1993, p.180) by saying that “it is hardly to be expected that a single
concept of information would satisfactorily account for the numerous possible applications
of this general field”, we can observe the same difficulty related a consensus on the semantic
definition about the terms of mis-, dis-, mal-information. This is due to the fact that
misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation, as well as information, have also
numerous properties that indicate their causes and use. Therefore, incorrect, misleading, or
uncertain information may present many possibilities and be open to multiple interpretations.
Over the 16 arrangements presented - bias, propaganda, retracted papers, conspiracy
theories, misleading representation in maps, charts, and graphics, fake news, clickbait,
hoaxes, satire or parody, imposter websites, fake reviews, phishing, political use of
sensitive information, misuse of personal/confidential information, filter bubbles, and echo
chambers - we can summarize that our view about misinformation, disinformation,
malinformation is that the three are types of information, each with multiple use
possibilities, according to the intentionality. Hence, (i) misinformation is inaccurate
information, open to multiple comprehensions and uses, being the prefix mis–, an indication
of mistake or something wrong. (ii) disinformation is information deliberately deceptive,
intending to deceive; and (iii) malinformation is the sensitive information that is strategically
used to cause advantage, whether personal or institutional.
We can also infer that the phenomena of misinformation, disinformation,
malinformation, and its derivations, occur as incessant actions in search of the conditions of
satisfaction in reaching the intentionality of propositional content, that is, the needs of
specific groups in search of the information so desired.
17
Encontros Bibli: revista eletrônica de biblioteconomia e ciência da informação, Florianópolis, v. 26, p. 01-23, 2021.
Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina. ISSN 1518-2924. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5007/1518-2924.2021.e76900
Finally, we can point out some perspectives for further works in Information Science,
such as a possible understanding of regulation and co-regulation of the digital environment,
and regulation tools for the web in the next electoral scenario, besides the critical thinking
issues perspectives. To think beyond truth and non-truth binaries values (DEVINE, 2018;
SØE, 2019), besides seek to join transdisciplinary efforts with other fields of knowledge can
also set itself up as one of the ways for solving real problems on the spectrum of
misinformation and its effects on society. Thus, Information Science revisits its first proposal:
to act with social responsibility in this technological and informational paradigm, and now, in
the era of information wars and the misinformational explosion age.
REFERENCES
AKERS, J. et al. Technology-Enabled Disinformation: Summary, Lessons, and
Recommendations. arXiv.org, [S. l.], v. 1, 2019. Available at:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1812.09383. Access on May 28, 2020.
APTE, M.; PALSHIKAR, G.; BASKARAN, S. Frauds in online social networks: A review. In:
ÖZYER, T. et al. (ed.). Social Networks and surveillance for Society. Switzerland:
Springer International Publishing AG, 2019.
BALL, P. Anti-vaccine movement might undermine pandemic efforts. Nature, London, v.
581, p. 251, 2020. Available at: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01423-4.
Access on May 17, 2020.
BAINES, D.; ELLIOTT, R. J.R. Defining misinformation, disinformation and malinformation:
An urgent need for clarity during the COVID-19 infodemic. Discussion Papers, p. 20-06,
2020.
BARCLAY, D. A. Confronting the Wicked Problem of Fake News: A Role for Education?
Cicero Foundation Great Debate Paper, n.18/03, 2018. Available at:
http://www.cicerofoundation.org/lectures/Donald_Barclay_Confronting_Fake_News.pdf.
Access on January 27, 2020.
BARRETO, A. A. Condição da Informação. São Paulo em Perspectiva, São Paulo, v. 16,
n. 3, p. 67-74, 2002. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-88392002000300010.
Access on December 22, 2019.
BURBULES, N. Struggling with the World Wide Web. Campus Review, [s. l.], v. 19, p. 20-
22, 1997.
CADWALLADR, C.; GRAHAM-HARRISON, E. Revealed: 50 million Facebook profiles
harvested for Cambridge Analytica in major data breach. The Guardian, London, 17 Mar.
2018. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/17/cambridge-analytica-
facebook-influence-us-election. Access on Mar. 13, 2020.
18
Encontros Bibli: revista eletrônica de biblioteconomia e ciência da informação, Florianópolis, v. 26, p. 01-23, 2021.
Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina. ISSN 1518-2924. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5007/1518-2924.2021.e76900
CAPURRO, R. What is information science for? A philosophical reflection. In:
VAKKARI, P.; CRONIN, B. (ed.). Conceptions of library and Information Science:
Historical, empirical and theoretical perspectives. London: Taylor Graham, 1992. p.
82-98.
CAPURRO, R. Hermeneutics and the Phenomenon of Information. In: MITCHAM, C. (ed.).
Metaphysics, Epistemology, and Technology. Research in Philosophy and
Technology. Amsterdam: JAI/Elsevier Inc, 2000. v. 19, p. 79-85.
CUDMORE, B. Five Ways to Lie with Charts. Nautilus, [S. l.], n. 19, 6 Nov. 2014.
Available at: http://nautil.us/issue/19/illusions/five-ways-to-lie-with-charts. Access on
December 30, 2019.
DEVINE, N. Beyond Truth and Non-truth. In: PETERS, M. A. et al. (ed.) Post-Truth, Fake
News. Springer: Singapore, 2018, p. 161-168.
DISINFORMATION and ‘fake news’: Interim Report Contents. UK Parliament, London, 29
July 2018. Available at:
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmcumeds/363/36304.htm#_idT
extAnchor002. Access on Aug. 31, 2020.
DUNN, A. et al. Associations Between Exposure to and Expression of Negative Opinions
About Human Papillomavirus Vaccines on Social Media: An Observational Study. Journal
of Medical Internet Research, [s. l.], v. 17, n. 6, Jun. 2015. Available at:
https://www.jmir.org/2015/6/e144/. Access on December 31, 2019.
ENAGO. Retractions Due to Fake Peer Reviews. Enago Academy website. 23 May
2018. Available at: https://www.enago.com/academy/retractions-due-to-fake-peer-reviews.
Access on December 30, 2019.
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT. Disinformation and propaganda – impact on the functioning of
the rule of law in the EU and its Member States, Feb. 2019, p. 79. Available at:
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2019/608864/IPOL_STU(2019)60
8864_EN.pdf Access on March 31, 2020.
FALLET, L. La désinformation, mal incontournable des médias? Mémoire de
Communication. Rouen: INSA, 2001.
FALLIS, D. A conceptual analysis of disinformation. In: iCONFERENCE, 2009, Chapel Hill.
Proceedings […]. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 2009. Available on:
http://hdl.handle.net/2142/15205. Access on December 22, 2019.
FALLIS, D. Floridi on disinformation. Etica & Politica, [s. l.], v. 3, n. 2, p. 201–214, 2011.
FALLIS, D. A Functional Analysis of Disinformation. In: iCONFERENCE, 2014, Berlin.
Proceedings […]. Berlin: University Humboldt, 2014. Available at:
http://hdl.handle.net/2142/47258. Access on December 22, 2019.
19
Encontros Bibli: revista eletrônica de biblioteconomia e ciência da informação, Florianópolis, v. 26, p. 01-23, 2021.
Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina. ISSN 1518-2924. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5007/1518-2924.2021.e76900
FALLIS, D. What Is Disinformation? Library Trends, Champaign, Ill., v. 63, n. 3, p. 401–
426, 2015. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1353/lib.2015.0014. Access on May 05, 2019.
FETZER, J.H. Information: does it have to be true? Minds and Machines, Dordrecht, vol.
14, p. 223-229, 2004.
FLORIDI, L. Brave.net.world: The internet as a disinformation superhighway? The
Electronic Library, Oxford, v. 14, p. 509–514, 1996. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1108/eb045517. Access on May 10, 2019.
FLORIDI, L. Is Semantic Information Meaningful Data? Philosophy and
Phenomenological Research, Buffalo, v. 70, n. 2, 2005.
FLORIDI, L. In defence of the veridical nature of semantic Information. European Journal
of Analytic Philosophy, Rijeka, v. 3, n. 1, 2007.
FLORIDI, L. The philosophy of information. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011.
FOX, C. J. Information and misinformation: An investigation of the notions of
information, misinformation, informing, and misinforming. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press,
1983.
GACKOWSKI, Z. Quality of Informing: Bias and Disinformation Philosophical Background
and Roots. Issues in Informing Science and Information Technlogy, [s. l.], v. 3, p. 731-
744, 2006.
GLEICK, J. The Information: A History, a Theory, a Flood. New York: Pantheon Books,
2011.
HINDS, S. The European Union approach to disinformation and misinformation: the
case of the 2019 European Parliament elections. 2019. Dissertation (Master’s Degree in
Human Rights and Democratisation) University of Strasbourg, Estrasburgo, 2019.
HJØRLAND, B. Information: objective or subjective/situational? Journal of the
American Society for Information Science and Technology, New York, v. 58, n.
10, p. 1448-1456, 2007.
HUFF, D. How to Lie with Statistics. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1993.
ILHARCO, F. Filosofia da Informação: alguns problemas fundadores. In: SOPCOM, 3.,
2004, Covilhã. Anais [...]. Covilhã: Universidade da Beira Interior, 2004. p. 41-48.
ISAAK, J.; HANNA, M. J. User Data Privacy: Facebook, Cambridge Analytica, and Privacy
Protection. Computer, Long Beach, v. 51, n. 8, p. 56-59, 2018. Available at:
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8436400 Access on December 15, 2020.
JAMIESON, K. H. Crisis or self-correction. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences of the United States of America, Washington v. 115, n. 11, p. 2620-2627, Mar.
2018. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1708276114. Access on December 10,
2019.
20
Encontros Bibli: revista eletrônica de biblioteconomia e ciência da informação, Florianópolis, v. 26, p. 01-23, 2021.
Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina. ISSN 1518-2924. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5007/1518-2924.2021.e76900
KARLOVA, N.; FISHER, K. A social diffusion model of misinformation and disinformation
for understanding human information behavior. Information Research, Sweden, v. 18, n.
1, 2013. Available at: http://InformationR.net/ir/18-1/paper573.html Access on October 30,
2019.
KARLOVA, N.; LEE, J. H. Notes from the underground city of disinformation: A conceptual
investigation. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and
Technology, [s. l.], v. 48, n. 1, p. 01-09, 2012. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1002/meet.2011.14504801133. Access on December 30, 2019.
KARLSEN, R.; STEEN-JOHNSEN, K.; WOLLEBÆK, D.; ENJOLRAS, B. Echo chamber
and trench warfare dynamics in online debates. European Journal of Communication,
London, v. 32, n.3, p. 257-273, 2017. Available at:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0267323117695734 Access on December
30, 2019.
KEISER, B. E. 2019. The Truth, the Whole Truth, and Nothing but the Truth in a Post-
Truth World. Online Searcher, Medford, v. 43, n.5, p. 26-33, 2019.
KELLY, J.; FRANÇOIS, C. This is what filter bubbles actually look like. MIT Technology
Review. [s. l.], 22 Aug. 2018. Available at:
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/611807/this-is-what-filter-bubbles-actually-look-
like/2018. Access on December 31, 2019.
KLEIN, C.; CLUTTON, P. DUNN, A. G. Pathways to conspiracy: The social and linguistic
precursors of involvement in Reddit’s conspiracy theory forum. Plos One, [s. l.], v. 14, n.
11, 2019. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225098. Access on December
24, 2019.
KUMAR, S.; SHAH, N. False Information on Web and Social Media: A Survey. arXiv.org,
[S. l.], v. 1, n. 1, 2018. Available at: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1804.08559.pdf. Access on
December 30, 2019.
MCLUHAN, Marshall. Culture Is Our Business. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1970.
MILLAR, Ronald. The Piltdown Men. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1972.
MIRANDA, M. K. F. O. A Teoria da Intencionalidade e a Informação: definições e
propriedades para a informação. In: RENDON-ROJAS, M. A. (Org.) La intencionalidad
en la Ciencia de la Información Documental. UNAM: Cidade do México, 2018, p. 35-60.
MIRANDA, M. K. F. O. Encontrabilidade e Teoria da Intencionalidade: propriedades para a
informação. Pesquisa Brasileira em Ciência da Informação e Biblioteconomia, João
Pessoa, v. 14, n. 2, p. 130-140, 2019.
MUNICH Security Conference. Speech. Available at:
https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/munich-security-conference Access on February
23, 2021.
21
Encontros Bibli: revista eletrônica de biblioteconomia e ciência da informação, Florianópolis, v. 26, p. 01-23, 2021.
Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina. ISSN 1518-2924. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5007/1518-2924.2021.e76900
PARISER, E. The filter bubble: What the internet is hiding from you. New York, NY:
Penguin Books, 2011.
PELTIER, J. Broken Y Axis in an Excel Chart. Peltier Tech Blog. [S. l.], 18 Nov. 2011.
Available on: https://peltiertech.com/broken-y-axis-in-excel-chart. Access on December 30,
2019.
PHILLIPS, D. Brazil stops releasing Covid-19 death toll and wipes data from official site.
The Guardian, London, 7 Jun. 2020. Available at:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/07/brazil-stops-releasing-covid-19-death-toll-
and-wipes-data-from-official-site Access on September 7, 2020.
POSETTI, J.; BONTCHEVA K. Disinfodemic: Dissecting responses to COVID-19
disinformation. Paris: UNESCO, 2020. Available at:
https://en.unesco.org/sites/default/files/disinfodemic_dissecting_responses_covid19_disinf
ormation.pdf . Access on August 20, 2020.
ROMERO-RODRÍGUEZ, L. M. Pragmática de la desinformación: Estratagemas e
incidencia de la calidad informativa de los médios. 2014. Tese (Doctorado
Interuniversitario en Comunicación) – Universidad de Huelva, Espanha, 2014.
RUBIN, V.; CHEN, Y.; CONROY, N. Deception detection for news: Three types of fakes.
Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, [s. l.], v. 52,
n. 1, p. 1-4, 2016. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.2015.145052010083 . Access
on September 20, 2019.
SANTOS-D’AMORIM, K.; MIRANDA, M. K. F.; O; CORREIA, A. E. G. C. Retracted
Papers e a Desinformação Na Comunicação Científica Brasileira. In: LATMETRICS,
2., 2019, Cusco. Anais [...]. Cusco: Universidad Andina del Cusco, 2020. p. 79-86.
Available at: https://app.uff.br/riuff/handle/1/14146. Access on December 22, 2020.
SCARANTINO, A.; PICCININI, G. Information without truth. Metaphilosophy, Oxford, v.
41, p. 313-330, 2010. Available at: doi:10.1111/j.1467-9973.2010.01632.x. Access on 01
July 2020.
SHANNON, C. E. Claude Elwood Shannon: Collected Papers. New York: IEEE
Press, 1993.
SCHRADER, A. M. The domain of information science: problems in conceptualization and
in consensus-building. Information Services & Use, Amsterdam, v. 6, p. 169-205, 1986.
STENGEL, R. Information Wars: How We Lost the Global Battle Against Disinformation
and What We Can Do About It. New York: Atlantic Monthly, 2019.
SØE, S.O. A Floridian dilemma. Semantic information and truth. Information Research,
Sweden, v. 24, n. 2, 2019. Available at: http://InformationR.net/ir/24-2/paper827.html.
Access in February 2020.
TARDÁGUILA, C.; BENEVENUTO F.; ORTELLADO, P. Fake News Is Poisoning
Brazilian Politics. WhatsApp Can Stop It. The New York Times, New York, 17 Oct. 2018,
22
Encontros Bibli: revista eletrônica de biblioteconomia e ciência da informação, Florianópolis, v. 26, p. 01-23, 2021.
Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina. ISSN 1518-2924. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5007/1518-2924.2021.e76900
Opinion. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/17/opinion/brazil-election-fake-
news-whatsapp.html. Access on December 14, 2019.
TUFTE, E.R. The Visual Display of Quantitative Information. Graphics Press, Cheshire,
Connecticut: 1983.
WALKER, A. S. Preparing Students for the Fight Against False Information with Visual
Verification and Open Source Reporting. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator,
Columbia, v. 74, n. 2, p. 227-239, 2019. Available at: DOI:1177/1077695819831098.
Access on 10 July 2020.
WARDLE, C.; DERAKHSHAN, H. Information disorder: Toward an interdisciplinary
framework for research and policy making. Council of Europe: Strasbourg Cedex,
2017.
WARDLE, C.; DERAKHSHAN, H. Thinking about ‘information disorder’: formats of
misinformation, disinformation, and mal-information. In: IRETON, C.; POSETTI, J. (org.).
Journalism, ‘fake news’ & disinformation. Paris: UNESCO; 2018. p. 43-54. Available
on: https://bit.ly/2FW3Esb. Access on December 20, 2019.
WARDLE, Claire. [S. l.: s. n.], 2019. 1 video (12 min). Published by the TED channel.
Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iD4HwJ-67Q&t=89s. Acess in February
2021.
ZANNETTOU, S. et al. The Web of False Information: Rumors, Fake News, Hoaxes,
Clickbait, and Various Other Shenanigans. Journal of Data and Information Quality,
New York, v. 11, n. 3, p. 10-37, 2019.
ZAROCOSTAS, J. How to fight an infodemic. The Lancet, London, v. 395, n. 10225, Feb.
29, 2020.
AGRADECIMENTOS
NOTES
Ao bibliotecário Rinaldo Ribeiro de Melo, pela normalização das referências deste artigo.
CONTRIBUIÇÃO DE AUTORIA
Concepção e elaboração do manuscrito: K. Santos-d’Amorim, M. K. F.O. Miranda
Coleta de dados: K. Santos-d’Amorim.
Análise de dados: K. Santos-d’Amorim, M. K. F.O. Miranda
Discussão dos resultados: K. Santos-d’Amorim, M. K. F.O. Miranda
Revisão e aprovação: K. Santos-d’Amorim, M. K. F.O. Miranda
CONJUNTO DE DADOS DE PESQUISA
Todo o conjunto de dados que dá suporte aos resultados deste estudo foi publicado no próprio artigo.
FINANCIAMENTO
O presente trabalho foi realizado com apoio da Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior – Brasil
(CAPES) – Código de Financiamento 001 e da Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - Edital de Tradução de Manuscritos
no 05/2020 - UFPE (PRO: 23076.016222/2020-28).
CONSENTIMENTO DE USO DE IMAGEM
Não se aplica.
APROVAÇÃO DE COMITÊ DE ÉTICA EM PESQUISA
Não se aplica.
23
Encontros Bibli: revista eletrônica de biblioteconomia e ciência da informação, Florianópolis, v. 26, p. 01-23, 2021.
Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina. ISSN 1518-2924. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5007/1518-2924.2021.e76900
View publication stats
CONFLITO DE INTERESSES
Não se aplica.
LICENÇA DE USO
Os autores cedem à Encontros Bibli os direitos exclusivos de primeira publicação, com o trabalho simultaneamente
licenciado sob a Licença Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 International. Estra licença permite que terceiros
remixem, adaptem e criem a partir do trabalho publicado, atribuindo o devido crédito de autoria e publicação inicial neste
periódico. Os autores têm autorização para assumir contratos adicionais separadamente, para distribuição não exclusiva
da versão do trabalho publicada neste periódico (ex.: publicar em repositório institucional, em site pessoal, publicar uma
tradução, ou como capítulo de livro), com reconhecimento de autoria e publicação inicial neste periódico.
PUBLISHER
Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina. Programa de Pós-graduação em Ciência da Informação. Publicação no Portal
de Periódicos UFSC. As ideias expressadas neste artigo são de responsabilidade de seus autores, não representando,
necessariamente, a opinião dos editores ou da universidade.
EDITORES
Enrique Muriel-Torrado, Edgar Bisset Alvarez, Camila Barros.
HISTÓRICO
Recebido em: 01/09/2020 – Aprovado em: 01/03/2021 – Publicado em: 20/03/2021
