 | This is an
essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been
thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
Propaganda is a form of communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position. The inclusion of propaganda outlets as sources of information may be problematic for Wikipedia. As for the attempted use of Wikipedia itself as a medium to spread propaganda, see Wikipedia:Advocacy.
Authoritarian governments have a tense relation with the press, and usually try to place limits on it. The ideal press for such government is a press that only gives good news, and describe the political, social and economic events under a positive light. The national leader (that we may call Big Brother) is subject to a cult of personality; he is described as infallible and with the absolute and complete support of the people. The people that oppose Big Brother are described instead in very negative ways, to the point of defamation. Bad news are either concealed or distorted, usually blaming the Brotherhood for them. This press is composed by regular press forced to this role by limits on their activities, or by openly state-sponsored press. In successful authoritarian governments, free press is non-existent, and this pro-government press is the only press that the population has access to.
When we talk about past authoritarian governments, this is hardly an issue for Wikipedia, as the propaganda press usually falls alongside the regime that it promoted. The media is either closed by the new government, goes out of business, or try to redesign itself by changing their editorial line according to the new times. Our sources to talk about the regime would be history books, which would treat both Big Brother and his propaganda network as historical topics, with the required neutral tone. Of course, historians must struggle between what the records of the time said that happened, and what actually happened (meaning, filtering the praises and defamations contained in propaganda), but fortunately that's their job, not ours.
The problem is when we talk about current authoritarian governments. Because of its very definition, being a propaganda outlet is at odds with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, which is a mandatory requirement. This type of press is a questionable source, and must not be used to reference facts in Wikipedia's voice. It may be used to report what does this press say, but used with care, and without repeating defamations against the Brotherhood. As for which sources to use, it may be a better idea to use sources from some other country, which may report the events in a professional way without fearing retaliations.
An extravagant Big Brother may say completely outlandish things, like claiming that 2 + 2 = 5. Propaganda outlets will of course repeat the claim, and treat it as correct. If this is the case, we must not give it undue weight. 2 + 2 = 4, and that's it. We can not say that "2 + 2 = 4, but Big Brother claims it is 5". Neither we can report it in his article as if he had said something credible: fringe theories must be clearly described as such. Of course, if the outlandish claim is not noteworthy enough, it may be simply ignored. Remember that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and we are not supposed to report everything that someone ever said.
As a rule of thumb, the claims that should be treated with care are those that involve topic areas beyond the scope of action of a mere governor. If a Big Brother explains something in a way that defies the established knowledge about a topic, it should be treated as any conspiracy theorist that wrote a weird idea in a book. Remember that the reliability of a source is tied to the expertise in the topic, and most governors are not academics on their own right.
Take with care as well the claims about conspiracies or soft coups against the government. Usually, those are just made up stories to justify authoritarian measures or explain problems as something caused on purpose by someone else. Did Big Brother provide some actual proof of those conspiracies? Is there a formal denounce? If not, if it's just rhetoric in the media, it is only a claim. Have in mind that a conspiracy is a crime, and we should not report lightly that a living person is accused of a crime. See WP:BLPCRIME.
Of course, everything must be considered in context, and case by case. A newspaper that struggles to stay independent and up to high quality journalist standards may still be a reliable source, despite the national government. Propaganda outlets may be acceptable as sources for other topics unrelated to politics, such as popular culture.
| This is an
essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been
thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
Propaganda is a form of communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position. The inclusion of propaganda outlets as sources of information may be problematic for Wikipedia. As for the attempted use of Wikipedia itself as a medium to spread propaganda, see Wikipedia:Advocacy.
Authoritarian governments have a tense relation with the press, and usually try to place limits on it. The ideal press for such government is a press that only gives good news, and describe the political, social and economic events under a positive light. The national leader (that we may call Big Brother) is subject to a cult of personality; he is described as infallible and with the absolute and complete support of the people. The people that oppose Big Brother are described instead in very negative ways, to the point of defamation. Bad news are either concealed or distorted, usually blaming the Brotherhood for them. This press is composed by regular press forced to this role by limits on their activities, or by openly state-sponsored press. In successful authoritarian governments, free press is non-existent, and this pro-government press is the only press that the population has access to.
When we talk about past authoritarian governments, this is hardly an issue for Wikipedia, as the propaganda press usually falls alongside the regime that it promoted. The media is either closed by the new government, goes out of business, or try to redesign itself by changing their editorial line according to the new times. Our sources to talk about the regime would be history books, which would treat both Big Brother and his propaganda network as historical topics, with the required neutral tone. Of course, historians must struggle between what the records of the time said that happened, and what actually happened (meaning, filtering the praises and defamations contained in propaganda), but fortunately that's their job, not ours.
The problem is when we talk about current authoritarian governments. Because of its very definition, being a propaganda outlet is at odds with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, which is a mandatory requirement. This type of press is a questionable source, and must not be used to reference facts in Wikipedia's voice. It may be used to report what does this press say, but used with care, and without repeating defamations against the Brotherhood. As for which sources to use, it may be a better idea to use sources from some other country, which may report the events in a professional way without fearing retaliations.
An extravagant Big Brother may say completely outlandish things, like claiming that 2 + 2 = 5. Propaganda outlets will of course repeat the claim, and treat it as correct. If this is the case, we must not give it undue weight. 2 + 2 = 4, and that's it. We can not say that "2 + 2 = 4, but Big Brother claims it is 5". Neither we can report it in his article as if he had said something credible: fringe theories must be clearly described as such. Of course, if the outlandish claim is not noteworthy enough, it may be simply ignored. Remember that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and we are not supposed to report everything that someone ever said.
As a rule of thumb, the claims that should be treated with care are those that involve topic areas beyond the scope of action of a mere governor. If a Big Brother explains something in a way that defies the established knowledge about a topic, it should be treated as any conspiracy theorist that wrote a weird idea in a book. Remember that the reliability of a source is tied to the expertise in the topic, and most governors are not academics on their own right.
Take with care as well the claims about conspiracies or soft coups against the government. Usually, those are just made up stories to justify authoritarian measures or explain problems as something caused on purpose by someone else. Did Big Brother provide some actual proof of those conspiracies? Is there a formal denounce? If not, if it's just rhetoric in the media, it is only a claim. Have in mind that a conspiracy is a crime, and we should not report lightly that a living person is accused of a crime. See WP:BLPCRIME.
Of course, everything must be considered in context, and case by case. A newspaper that struggles to stay independent and up to high quality journalist standards may still be a reliable source, despite the national government. Propaganda outlets may be acceptable as sources for other topics unrelated to politics, such as popular culture.