Difference between revisions of "Talk:Propaganda techniques"
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
"Disinformation had numerous grammar errors that I corrected, but the second paragraph is a jumbl;e that mystified me. It makes no sense as is. Anyone got a clue? | "Disinformation had numerous grammar errors that I corrected, but the second paragraph is a jumbl;e that mystified me. It makes no sense as is. Anyone got a clue? | ||
| − | [[User:saye|Debbie | + | [[User:saye|Debbie]] 01 Jan 2004 |
---- | ---- | ||
Revision as of 16:21, 1 February 2004
While it's possible that "Logical Fallacies" might merit a topic of its own, for now, in the context of SourceWatch, I don't see that it requires separation from "Propaganda techniques"; though ... a cause ... of course ... may arise ;-} -- Maynard 23:04 30 Mar 2003 (EST)
I removed reference to 'spambot' as a propaganda technique, based upon this common definition of spambot: A spambot is a robot that specializes in gathering email addresses for a spammer to use. It basically follows links and saves any email addresses it finds as it goes along. A spambot usually gathers emails from the web or from usenet, but may also gather it from other sources.[1]
--Maynard 16:13 12 Jun 2003 (EDT)
I am contemplating a revision for the propaganda techniques definition offered here, and entered some comments on an open user-talk page in hopes of getting some ideas before I make any unneeded changes.
Propagator user talk for propaganda techniques article
Propagator
"Planting press article" was duplicated, so I removed one of the duplicates.
"Disinformation had numerous grammar errors that I corrected, but the second paragraph is a jumbl;e that mystified me. It makes no sense as is. Anyone got a clue?
Debbie 01 Jan 2004
