SourceWatch is a free encyclopedia of people, issues, and groups shaping the public agenda, including activist groups and government agencies but especially public relations firms, front groups, and industry-friendly experts that try to manipulate public opinion. It catalogues descriptions and details of as well as the criticisms that are made of these groups from different perspectives.
A number of individuals and organizations have previously attempted to compile similar guides and directories, but the sheer number of ever-changing groups has prevented anyone from developing a comprehensive list. The goal of SourceWatch is to create the largest and most up-to-date guide in history, both in terms of breadth and depth. We also want SourceWatch to become a reliable resource. It is an ambitious goal, and it may take many years to achieve it.
Contents
-
What is "disinformation"?
-
Is disinformation just lying?
-
Why are PR firms a threat?
-
How can the public fight back?
-
What is this project's role in increasing public scrutiny?
-
Who owns SourceWatch?
-
Who is responsible for the articles on SourceWatch?
-
I want to contact the project by e-mail. What's the address?
-
Where can I talk about SourceWatch with others?
-
What is Wikipedia?
What is "disinformation"?
Disinformation is deliberately misleading information announced publicly or leaked by a government, intelligence agency, corporation or other entity for the purpose of influencing opinions or perceptions.
Unlike misinformation, which is also a form of wrong information, disinformation is produced by people who intend to deceive their audience.
A group might plant disinformation in reports, in press releases, in public statements or in practically any other routine, occasional or unusual communique. Disinformation can also be leaked, or covertly released to a source who can be trusted to repeat the false information.
A common disinformation tactic is to mix truth, half-truths, and lies. Disinformants sometimes seek to gain the confidence of their audience through emotional appeals or by using semi-neutral language interlaced with threads of disinformation.
It may be easier to ask and answer questions like "at what point does opinion or advocacy become disinformation?", "can history or ideology remain simplified without being disinforming?", and "what concept equals what other concept in this opinion, advocacy, history, or ideology?" Such distinctions are studied in the fields of conceptual metaphor, information warfare, psychological operations, scientific method, historical method and the sociology of knowledge.
One distinction that most students of these topics accept is that someone with an economic self-interest is rarely, if ever, a neutral observer.
Is disinformation just lying?
No. The word "lying " usually implies an awareness of spreading untruths. Long study in psychology, e.g. false memory syndrome, groupthink, suggests that honest advocates of a view can rarely tell when they have accepted some questionable premise or evidence along with the valid evidence for that view. This suggests a constructive role for their opponents in 'culling' that evidence and moderating extreme points of view among front groups, and industry experts. Such views may reflect not a desire to disinform, but rather a biased mind-set or paradigm where some central dogma has become accepted as true.
Why are PR firms a threat?
Public relations, the profession that trades in influence and in altering mind-sets and conceptual metaphors in public life, often has both economic self-interest and a commitment to a point of view. Thus an extreme scrutiny on activities and ethical codes of such professions is advised: the statements it produces must usually be considered disinformation by definition, at least by opponents, until proven otherwise.
How can the public fight back?
When such activities are genuinely against the public interest, wise members of the public seek tools to regain mindshare for what they see as 'truth'. Holding disinforming groups up to scrutiny is an ongoing process, a process far more important than labeling any particular point of view, or metaphor, or idea, as "disinforming". It is a cornerstone of any democracy.
What is this project's role in increasing public scrutiny?
Because of its global scope and experience with prior projects like Wikipedia and others by PRwatch, hopefully a project like SourceWatch can support the public scrutiny process more effectively than was possible with prior methods. If not, then also hopefully, that will become obvious and a more effective successor that will serve public purposes better can evolve, learning from this project's flaws and successes. So this project will likely serve as it is, and inspire successors. Our hope is based on use of very open and simple tools that have proven capable of attracting mass public participation:
Who owns SourceWatch?
The owner of the server and the domain names is the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD). However, the articles are released by their authors under the GNU Free Documentation License, so the articles are open content. Therefore, it cannot be said that the owner of SourceWatch articles is CMD. See SourceWatch:Copyrights and SourceWatch:Readers' FAQ for information on how you can use SourceWatch content. (Please note, however, that other sections of the PR Watch web site remain copyrighted property of the Center for Media and Democracy and should not be used without permission.)
Who is responsible for the articles on SourceWatch?
This is a collaborative endeavor. Many people have contributed to different parts of this project, and anyone can do so. Including you! All you need to know is How to edit a page. It would also be good to know what you are talking about.
You can learn who is responsible for the most recent versions of any given page by clicking on the "History" link. But remember, if you spot an error in the latest revision and you don't correct it, then you share responsibility for the error. So be bold in updating pages!
If you are uncertain or find the wording confusing, quote the material on the associated talk page and leave a question for the next more knowledgeable reader or editor. This helps eliminate errors, inaccuracies or misleading wording more quickly and is highly appreciated by the community. Thank you!
I want to contact the project by e-mail. What's the address?
Contact the Center for Media & Democracy (bob AT SourceWatch.org) or Sheldon Rampton (sheldon AT prwatch.org). Otherwise, see the next question.
Where can I talk about SourceWatch with others?
If you want to communicate with a specific user, leave a message on his or her personal talk page; you can find a list of registered SourceWatch users at Special:Listusers. PR Watch also hosts a SourceWatch web forum. Finally, if you're looking to talk about a specific article or page, the best place to put your comments is on that page's Talk section.