Chapter 11 Further Reading: Taxonomy of Information Disorder

Foundational Works

1. Wardle, Claire, and Hossein Derakhshan. Information Disorder: Toward an Interdisciplinary Framework for Research and Policy Making. Council of Europe, 2017.

The foundational document for this chapter. This report established the three-category (misinformation/disinformation/malinformation) and seven-type taxonomies that have become standard in academic and policy discussions. Wardle and Derakhshan synthesize prior research, propose the Actors-Messages-Interpreters process model, and draw out extensive policy implications. Essential reading for anyone working in this field. Freely available from the Council of Europe website. Note that the authors have subsequently refined some elements of the framework — later publications should be consulted alongside the original.

Annotation: Start here. The original report is dense but highly readable. The policy sections are particularly strong. A 2018 revised and updated version incorporates feedback from the research community.

2. Vosoughi, Soroush, Deb Roy, and Sinan Aral. "The Spread of True and False News Online." Science 359, no. 6380 (2018): 1146-1151.

The most-cited empirical study on misinformation spread. Using a dataset of 126,000 Twitter rumor cascades over a decade, this paper demonstrates that false stories spread faster, deeper, further, and to more people than true stories — and that this effect is driven primarily by human behavior rather than automated bot activity. The paper's finding that novelty drives false news spread (false news is more novel, which makes it more engaging) has been particularly influential. Read alongside subsequent critiques that identify the study's methodological limitations, particularly the sample selection issues created by using only fact-checker-verified content.

Annotation: Read the full paper, including the supplementary materials, which contain important methodological details. Then read the critical responses in subsequent issues of Science to understand the study's limitations.

3. First Draft Research. Understanding Information Disorder. First Draft, 2019.

The most accessible introduction to the Wardle-Derakhshan framework. First Draft (formerly a project of Claire Wardle and colleagues) produced this widely-circulated accessible guide to information disorder types, illustrated with real examples. The guide has been used in journalism training programs globally and provides excellent worked examples for each of the seven content types. Freely available online. First Draft has since produced numerous follow-up reports on specific information disorder episodes (COVID-19, elections, climate change) that apply the framework to specific cases.

Annotation: Best used as a companion to the more technical Wardle-Derakhshan 2017 report. The examples are from 2019; the framework remains current.

Empirical Research on Misinformation Prevalence and Effects

4. Guess, Andrew, Jonathan Nagler, and Joshua Tucker. "Less Than You Think: Prevalence and Predictors of Fake News Dissemination on Facebook." Science Advances 5, no. 1 (2019).

The essential counterpoint to alarmist misinformation narratives. Using survey data combined with actual web traffic data, this study found that only a small minority of Americans (about 1 in 4) visited a fake news website in the month before the 2016 election, and that consumption was concentrated among older, strongly partisan Republicans. This finding has been interpreted both as reassuring (misinformation reach may be smaller than feared) and as alarming (consumption is concentrated in politically influential demographics). Read alongside Roozenbeek et al. for a more complete picture.

Annotation: Essential for understanding why precision matters in misinformation discussions. The study measures consumption, not exposure; the difference is significant.

5. Pennycook, Gordon, and David G. Rand. "Lazy, Not Biased: Susceptibility to Partisan Fake News Is Better Explained by Lack of Reasoning Than Motivated Reasoning." Cognition 188 (2019): 39-50.

A landmark study challenging the motivated reasoning explanation for misinformation susceptibility. Pennycook and Rand argue that belief in false political news is better explained by lack of analytical thinking than by motivated reasoning (believing what confirms your prior views). Their findings suggest that interventions that improve analytical thinking should be effective across partisan lines. This paper generated significant academic debate; read alongside Tappin, Pennycook, and Rand (2021) for subsequent refinements.

Annotation: Methodologically sophisticated and theoretically important. The "lazy, not biased" thesis has direct implications for educational interventions.

6. Roozenbeek, Jon, Sander van der Linden, and Thomas Nygren. "Prebunking Interventions Based on the Psychological Theory of 'Inoculation' Can Result in Substantial Reductions in Misinformation Susceptibility." Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review 1, no. 2 (2020).

The core paper on prebunking/inoculation as a counter-misinformation intervention. Building on inoculation theory (Compton, 2013), this study demonstrates that exposing audiences to weakened doses of misinformation techniques — before they encounter actual misinformation — builds resistance. The Game of Minds game developed by the authors' team is the most extensive practical application of this research. Essential for understanding interventions that work at the Interpreters level of the process model.

Annotation: Directly applicable to media literacy curriculum design. The Cambridge and Google teams have continued this research with significant follow-up studies.

Disinformation and State Actors

7. Mueller, Robert S. Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election (Mueller Report). US Department of Justice, 2019.

The most comprehensive public documentation of a state-sponsored disinformation operation. Volume 1 of the Mueller Report details the Internet Research Agency's social media operations, the GRU's hack-and-leak operations, and the broader Russian information environment strategy. Essential primary source material for understanding state-sponsored disinformation. Read with attention to the evidentiary standards and attribution methodology, which differ from academic research standards.

Annotation: Long but essential. Focus on Volume 1, particularly Sections III-V. The report models careful, evidence-based attribution practice.

8. EU DisinfoLab and Stanford Internet Observatory. Secondary Infektion. 2020.

The comprehensive investigation of the Russian-linked disinformation operation covered in Case Study 2. Available freely online. The report models sophisticated open-source investigation methodology and contains detailed documentation of how researchers identify coordinated inauthentic behavior. Read alongside the Stanford Internet Observatory's broader database of documented influence operations (io.stanford.edu/io) for comparative context.

Annotation: More technically detailed than most policy-oriented reports. The methodology section is particularly valuable for understanding how information operations research is conducted.

9. Rid, Thomas. Active Measures: The Secret History of Disinformation and Political Warfare. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2020.

The definitive historical account of disinformation as statecraft. Rid traces active measures from early Soviet operations through the Cold War to contemporary Russian information operations, drawing on declassified intelligence documents, interviews, and archival research. Particularly valuable for contextualizing the historical continuities and discontinuities between Cold War and digital-era disinformation. Rid's account of Operation INFEKTION (the AIDS disinformation campaign) is authoritative and revelatory.

Annotation: Narrative history, not academic monograph. Highly readable. Essential historical perspective.

Platform Governance and Policy

10. Gillespie, Tarleton. Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, Content Moderation, and the Hidden Decisions That Shape Social Media. Yale University Press, 2018.

The foundational academic account of how platforms make content moderation decisions. Gillespie examines the political, commercial, and cultural factors that shape platform content policies, arguing that platforms are not neutral conduits but active shapers of public discourse. Essential context for understanding how the information disorder taxonomy is — and is not — operationalized in platform governance.

Annotation: Academic but accessible. Read alongside Klonick (2018) for a more legally focused perspective.

11. European Commission. The EU Code of Practice on Disinformation 2022. European Commission, 2022.

The primary policy document governing disinformation on platforms operating in the EU. The Code of Practice is a self-regulatory instrument through which major platforms commit to specific measures for addressing disinformation. The 2022 update significantly strengthened commitments compared to the 2018 version. Essential for understanding how the academic taxonomy informs regulatory frameworks.

Annotation: Primary source document. Read alongside the Digital Services Act (2022) for the broader regulatory context. Evaluating platforms' actual compliance requires the audit reports they are required to submit.

Malinformation and Privacy

12. Solove, Daniel J. The Future of Reputation: Gossip, Rumor, and Privacy on the Internet. Yale University Press, 2007.

The foundational legal and ethical analysis of online privacy and reputation harm. Although predating the Wardle-Derakhshan framework, Solove's analysis maps directly onto the malinformation category, providing the legal and ethical theory for understanding how true information can cause serious harm. Solove's concept of "contextual integrity" — the idea that information flows are appropriate when they match the norms of the context in which information was originally shared — provides a principled framework for distinguishing malinformation from legitimate disclosure.

Annotation: Essential theoretical grounding for the malinformation category. More philosophically rich than policy-oriented accounts.

13. Chesney, Robert, and Danielle Citron. "Deep Fakes: A Looming Challenge for Privacy, Democracy, and National Security." California Law Review 107 (2019): 1753-1819.

The definitive legal analysis of deepfakes as an emerging malinformation technology. Chesney and Citron examine how convincing AI-generated video, audio, and images — capable of depicting real people saying and doing things they never did — challenge existing legal frameworks. The article maps deepfake harms across the malinformation taxonomy and proposes legal reforms. Read alongside later empirical research on deepfake detection and societal effects.

Annotation: Legal focus but essential for non-lawyers. The deepfake threat has evolved significantly since publication; read alongside 2022-2024 updates.

Methodological Guides

14. Silverman, Craig, ed. Verification Handbook: An Ultimate Guideline on Digital Open Source Research. European Journalism Centre, 2014 (updated editions).

The practitioner's guide to information verification. This open-access handbook covers source verification, image and video verification, reverse image search, metadata analysis, and verification of social media accounts — the practical skills that operationalize the information disorder taxonomy at the individual level. Regularly updated editions reflect current platform capabilities and tools.

Annotation: Practical reference guide. Use it, don't just read it. The updated editions add new tools and techniques as the information environment evolves.

15. Wardle, Claire. Misinformation Has Created a New World Disorder. Scientific American, 2019.

An accessible synthesis of the information disorder framework for general audiences. This article distills the academic framework into a readable overview and addresses common questions about the relationship between social media and misinformation. Useful as an introduction before engaging with the full 2017 report, or as a supplementary reading for students who find the academic literature challenging.

Annotation: Best used as a gateway text. Freely available online. Wardle's subsequent essays and commentary (collected at firstdraftnews.org) track how the framework has evolved in response to specific information disorder episodes.

All sources marked as freely available are accessible online without subscription as of the publication of this textbook. Academic journal articles may require institutional library access. The Council of Europe, EU DisinfoLab, Stanford Internet Observatory, First Draft, and Reuters Institute all maintain publicly accessible research archives.