What does fallacy mean mean?

1 

[count] : a wrong belief : a false or mistaken idea

• popular fallacies about medicine

• It's a fallacy (to believe) that the Earth is flat.

2 

[noncount] : the quality of being false or wrong

• The fallacy of their ideas about medicine soon became apparent.

Argument that uses faulty reasoning

"Logical error" redirects here. For logical errors in data storage, see Data integrity § Logical integrity.

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages) This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Fallacy" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (January 2022) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) This article's tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia's guide to writing better articles for suggestions. (January 2022) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

A fallacy is the use of invalid or otherwise faulty reasoning, or "wrong moves,"[1] in the construction of an argument[2][3] which may appear stronger than it really is if the fallacy is not spotted. The term in the Western intellectual tradition was introduced in the Aristotelian De Sophisticis Elenchis.[4]

Some fallacies may be committed intentionally to manipulate or persuade by deception. Others may be committed unintentionally because of human limitations such as carelessness, cognitive or social biases and ignorance, or, potentially, as the inevitable consequence of the limitations of language and understanding of language. This includes ignorance of the right reasoning standard, but also ignorance of relevant properties of the context. For instance, the soundness of legal arguments depends on the context in which the arguments are made.[5]

Fallacies are commonly divided into "formal" and "informal." A formal fallacy is a flaw in the structure of a deductive argument which renders the argument invalid, while an informal fallacy originates in an error in reasoning other than an improper logical form.[6] Arguments containing informal fallacies may be formally valid, but still fallacious.[4]

A special case is a mathematical fallacy, an intentionally invalid mathematical proof, often with the error subtle and somehow concealed. Mathematical fallacies are typically crafted and exhibited for educational purposes, usually taking the form of false proofs of obvious contradictions.

Overview

Fallacies are defects that weaken arguments. Fallacious arguments are very common and can be persuasive in common use. They may be even "unsubstantiated assertions that are often delivered with a conviction that makes them sound as though they are proven facts."[7] Informal fallacies in particular are found frequently in mass media such as television and newspapers.[8] Understanding fallacies can allow one to recognize them in either one's own or others' writing. Avoiding fallacies can improve one's ability to produce sound arguments.

It can be difficult to evaluate whether an argument is fallacious, as arguments exist along a continuum of soundness and an argument that has several stages or parts might have some sound sections and some fallacious ones.[9] Moreover, whether a specific argument is fallacious often depends on the content rather than the form of the argument. An example is a probabilistically valid instance of the formally invalid argument form of denying the antecedent or affirming the consequent. [10] Thus, "[f]allacious arguments usually have the deceptive appearance of being good arguments," [11] because for most fallacious instances of an argument form, a similar but non-fallacious instance can be found. Evaluating an instance of an argument form as fallacious is therefore virtually always also a matter of evaluating the context of the argument.

Recognizing fallacies in everyday arguments may be difficult since arguments are often embedded in rhetorical patterns that obscure the logical connections between statements. Informal fallacies may also exploit the emotional, intellectual, or psychological weaknesses of the audience. Recognizing fallacies can develop reasoning skills to expose the weaker links between premises and conclusions to better discern between what appears to be true and what is true.

Argumentation theory provides a different approach to understanding and classifying fallacies. In the Pragma-dialectical theory, for instance, an argument is regarded as an interactive protocol between individuals who attempt to resolve their disagreement on the merits of a case.[12] The protocol consists of normative rules of interaction, and violations of these rules are considered to be fallacies, because they frustrate the attempt at resolving the disagreement.

Fallacies are used in place of valid reasoning to communicate a point with the intention to persuade. Examples in the mass media today include but are not limited to propaganda, advertisements, politics, newspaper editorials and opinion-based news shows.

Systems of classification

Because of their variety of structure and application, fallacies are challenging to classify. Fallacies can be classified strictly by either their structure or their content, such as classifying them as formal fallacies or informal fallacies, respectively. The classification of informal fallacies may be subdivided into categories such as linguistic, relevance through omission, relevance through intrusion, and relevance through presumption.[13] On the other hand, fallacies may be classified by the process by which they occur, such as material fallacies (content), verbal fallacies (linguistic), and again formal fallacies (error in inference). In turn, material fallacies may be placed into the more general category of informal fallacies. Verbal fallacies may be placed in either formal or informal classifications: Compare equivocation, which is a word- or phrase-based ambiguity, to the fallacy of composition, which is premise- and inference-based ambiguity.[14]

Even the definitions of the classes may not be unique. For example, Whately treats material fallacies as a complement to logical fallacies, which makes them synonymous to informal fallacies, while others consider them to be a subclass of informal fallacies.

Greek logic

Greek philosopher Aristotle (384 – 322 BC) was the first to systematize logical errors into a list, to make it easier to refute an opponent's thesis and thus win an argument.[15]: 2  Aristotle's "Sophistical Refutations" (De Sophisticis Elenchis) identifies thirteen fallacies. He divided them up into two major types, linguistic fallacies and non-linguistic fallacies, some which depend on language and others that do not.[16][17] These fallacies are called verbal fallacies and material fallacies, respectively. A material fallacy is an error in what the arguer is talking about, while a verbal fallacy is an error in how the arguer is talking. Verbal fallacies are those in which a conclusion is obtained by improper or ambiguous use of words.[18] An example of a language dependent fallacy is given as a debate as to who in humanity are learners: the wise or the ignorant.[15]: 3  A language-independent fallacy is for example:

1. "Coriscus is different from Socrates."
2. "Socrates is a man."
3. "Therefore, Coriscus is different from a man."[15]: 4 

Indian logic

Indian logicians took great pains to identify fallacies in an argument. An influential collection of texts on logic and reason, the Nyāya Sūtras, attributed to Aksapada Gautama, variously estimated to have been composed between 6th-century BCE and 2nd-century CE, in its theory of inference lists five such reasons used in an argument which was further developed by later logicians.[19][20][21]

1. Asiddha: It is the unproved reason that results in this fallacy. [Paksadharmata]
2. Savyabhichara: This is the fallacy of irregular reason.
3. Satpratipaksa: Here the reason is contradicted by another reason. If both have equal force, then nothing follows. 'Sound is eternal, because it is audible', and 'Sound is non-eternal, because it is produced'. Here 'audible' is counterbalanced by 'produced' and both are of equal force.
4. Badhita: When another proof (as by perception) definitely contradicts and disproves the middle term (reason). 'Fire is cold because it is a substance'.
5. Viruddha: Instead of proving something it is proving the opposite. 'Sound is eternal because it is produced'.

Whately's grouping

English scholar and theologian Richard Whately (1787 – 1863) defines a fallacy broadly as, "any argument, or apparent argument, which professes to be decisive of the matter at hand, while in reality it is not".[15]: 8 

Whately divided fallacies into two groups: logical and material. According to Whately, logical fallacies are arguments where the conclusion does not follow from the premises. Material fallacies are not logical errors because the conclusion does follow from the premises. He then divided the logical group into two groups: purely logical and semi-logical. The semi-logical group included all of Aristotle's sophisms except ignoratio elenchi, petitio principii, and non causa pro causa, which are in the material group.[22]

Other systems of classification

Other famous methods of classifying fallacies are those of Francis Bacon and J. S. Mill. Bacon (Novum Organum, Aph. 33, 38 sqq.) divided fallacies into four Idola (Idols, i.e. False Appearances), which summarize the various kinds of mistakes to which the human intellect is prone. J. S. Mill discussed the subject in book five of his Logic, and Jeremy Bentham's Book of Fallacies (1824) contains valuable remarks.

Formal fallacy

Main article: Formal fallacy

A formal fallacy, deductive fallacy, logical fallacy or non sequitur (Latin for "it does not follow") is a flaw in the structure of a deductive argument which renders the argument invalid. The flaw can neatly be expressed in standard system of logic.[2] Such an argument is always considered to be wrong. The presence of the formal fallacy does not imply anything about the argument's premises or its conclusion. Both may actually be true, or may even be more probable as a result of the argument, but the deductive argument is still invalid because the conclusion does not follow from the premises in the manner described.

Even non-deductive arguments can be said to be fallacious: for example, an inductive argument that incorrectly applies principles of probability or causality. But "since deductive arguments depend on formal properties and inductive arguments don't, formal fallacies apply only to deductive arguments."[6]

A logical form such as "A and B" is independent of any particular conjunction of meaningful propositions. Logical form alone can guarantee that given true premises, a true conclusion must follow. However, formal logic makes no such guarantee if any premise is false; the conclusion can be either true or false. Any formal error or logical fallacy similarly invalidates the deductive guarantee. Both the argument and all its premises must be true for a conclusion to be true.

The term logical fallacy is in a sense self-contradictory, because logic refers to valid reasoning, whereas a fallacy is the use of poor reasoning. Therefore, the term formal fallacy is preferred. In informal discourse, however, logical fallacy is used to mean an argument which is problematic for any reason.

The term non sequitur denotes a general formal fallacy, often meaning one which does not belong to any named subclass of formal fallacies like affirming the consequent.

Common examples

Main article: List of fallacies § Formal fallacies

Ecological fallacy

An ecological fallacy is committed when one draws an inference from data based on the premise that qualities observed for groups necessarily hold for individuals; for example, "if countries with more Protestants tend to have higher suicide rates, then Protestants must be more likely to commit suicide."[23]

Fallacy fork

Maarten Boudry[24] and others[25] have argued that formal, deductive fallacies rarely occur in real life and that arguments that would be fallacious in formally deductive terms are not necessarily so when context and prior probabilities are taken into account, thus making the argument defeasible and/or inductive. Boudry coined the term fallacy fork.[24] For a given fallacy, one must either characterize it by means of a deductive argumentation scheme, which rarely applies (the first prong of the fork), or one must relax definitions and add nuance to take the actual intent and context of the argument into account (the other prong of the fork).[24] To argue, for example, that one became nauseated after eating a mushroom because the mushroom was poisonous could be an example of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.[24]

Informal fallacy

Main article: Informal fallacy

In contrast to a formal fallacy, an informal fallacy originates in a reasoning error other than a flaw in the logical form of the argument.[6] A deductive argument containing an informal fallacy may be formally valid,[4] but still remain rationally unpersuasive. Nevertheless, informal fallacies apply to both deductive and non-deductive arguments.

Though the form of the argument may be relevant, fallacies of this type are the "types of mistakes in reasoning that arise from the mishandling of the content of the propositions constituting the argument".[26]

Faulty generalization

A special subclass of the informal fallacies is the set of faulty generalizations, also known as inductive fallacies. Here the most important issue concerns inductive strength or methodology (for example, statistical inference). In the absence of sufficient evidence, drawing conclusions based on induction is unwarranted and fallacious. With the backing of sufficient amounts of the right type of empirical evidence, however, the conclusions may become warranted and convincing (at which point the arguments are no longer considered fallacious).[27]

Hasty generalization

Hasty generalization is described as making assumptions about a whole group or range of cases based on a sample that is inadequate (usually because it is atypical or just too small). Stereotypes about people ("frat boys are drunkards", "grad students are nerdy", "women don't enjoy sports", etc.) are common examples of the principle.

Hasty generalization often follows a pattern such as:

While never a valid logical deduction, if such an inference can be made on statistical grounds, it may nonetheless be convincing. This is because with enough empirical evidence, the generalization is no longer a hasty one.

Relevance fallacy

The fallacies of relevance are a broad class of informal fallacies, generically represented by missing the point: presenting an argument, which may be sound, but fails to address the issue in question.

Argument from silence

An argument from silence is a faulty conclusion that is made based on the absence of evidence rather than on the presence of evidence.

Examples of informal fallacies

Main article: List of fallacies § Informal fallacies

Post hoc (false cause)

The post hoc fallacy assumes that because B comes after A, A caused B. It gets its name from the Latin phrase "post hoc, ergo propter hoc", which translates as "after this, therefore because of this".

Sometimes one event really does cause another one that comes later—for example, if one registers for a class, and their name later appears on the roll, it's true that the first event caused the one that came later. But sometimes two events that seem related in time are not really related as cause and event. That is, temporal correlation does not necessarily entail causation. For example, if one eats a sandwich and then gets food poisoning, that does not necessarily mean the sandwich caused the food poisoning. Something else eaten earlier might have caused the food poisoning.

Slippery slope

For an argument to be a slippery slope type of argument it must meet the requirements of that argumentation scheme. A slippery slope argument originates from a conversation or debate in which two actors take turns. It usually originates from one actor giving advice on a decision or act. Along the way, the actor must make additional choices on similar matters through which the actor enters the ‘grey area’ of the slippery slope. At this point, the actor potentially loses control over the direction of the arguments, thus leading to a ‘fatal’ outcome.[28]

Such an argument is built up according to the following argumentation scheme: initial premise, sequential premise, indeterminacy premise, control premise, loss of control premise, catastrophic outcome premise and conclusion. Slippery slope arguments may be defeated by asking critical questions or giving counterarguments.[29]

There are several reasons for a slippery slope to be fallacious: for example, the argument is going too far into the future, it is a too complex argument and its structure is hard to identify or the argument makes emotional appeals.[30]

False analogy

Informally known as the "apples and oranges" fallacy, a false analogy uses unsound comparisons.[31]

Straw man fallacy

The straw man fallacy consists in presenting the standpoint of an opponent as more extreme than it in fact is. Compared to criticizing the opponent’s actual standpoint, this allows the arguer to offer a seeming refutation of what however is not the actual standpoint.[32] Such an argument involves two arguers, with one actor criticizing the perspective of the other.[33] The reason for the straw man argument to be fallacious originates from the problem of how to deal with natural discourse. The opponent’s argument is not reflected by the arguments that are proposed by the speaker.[34]

Measurement fallacy

Some of the fallacies described above may be committed in the context of measurement. Where mathematical fallacies are subtle mistakes in reasoning leading to invalid mathematical proofs, measurement fallacies are unwarranted inferential leaps involved in the extrapolation of raw data to a measurement-based value claim. The ancient Greek Sophist Protagoras was one of the first thinkers to propose that humans can generate reliable measurements through his "human-measure" principle and the practice of dissoi logoi (arguing multiple sides of an issue).[35][36] This history helps explain why measurement fallacies are informed by informal logic and argumentation theory.

Knowledge value measurement fallacy

The increasing availability and circulation of big data are driving a proliferation of new metrics for scholarly authority,[37][38] and there is lively discussion regarding the relative usefulness of such metrics for measuring the value of knowledge production in the context of an "information tsunami."[39]

For example, anchoring fallacies can occur when unwarranted weight is given to data generated by metrics that the arguers themselves acknowledge are flawed. For example, limitations of the journal impact factor (JIF) are well documented,[40] and even JIF pioneer Eugene Garfield notes, "while citation data create new tools for analyses of research performance, it should be stressed that they supplement rather than replace other quantitative-and qualitative-indicators."[41] To the extent that arguers jettison acknowledged limitations of JIF-generated data in evaluative judgments, or leave behind Garfield's "supplement rather than replace" caveat, they court commission of anchoring fallacies.

A naturalistic fallacy can occur for example in the case of sheer quantity metrics based on the premise "more is better"[39] or, in the case of developmental assessment in the field of psychology, "higher is better".[42]

A false analogy occurs when claims are supported by unsound comparisons between data points. For example, the Scopus and Web of Science bibliographic databases have difficulty distinguishing between citations of scholarly work that are arms-length endorsements, ceremonial citations, or negative citations (indicating the citing author withholds endorsement of the cited work).[37] Hence, measurement-based value claims premised on the uniform quality of all citations may be questioned on false analogy grounds.

As another example, consider the Faculty Scholarly Productivity Index of Academic Analytics. This tool purports to measure overall faculty productivity, yet it does not capture data based on citations in books. This creates a possibility that low productivity measurements using the tool commit argument from silence fallacies, to the extent that such measurements are supported by the absence of book citation data.

Ecological fallacies can be committed when one measures scholarly productivity of a sub-group of individuals (e.g. "Puerto Rican" faculty) via reference to aggregate data about a larger and different group (e.g. "Hispanic" faculty).[43]

Intentional fallacy

Sometimes a speaker or writer uses a fallacy intentionally. In any context, including academic debate, a conversation among friends, political discourse, advertising, or for comedic purposes, the arguer may use fallacious reasoning to try to persuade the listener or reader, by means other than offering relevant evidence, that the conclusion is true.

Examples of this include the speaker or writer:[44]

1. Diverting the argument to unrelated issues with a red herring (Ignoratio elenchi)
2. Insulting someone's character (argumentum ad hominem)
3. Assuming the conclusion of an argument, a kind of circular reasoning, also called "begging the question" (petitio principii)
4. Making jumps in logic (non sequitur)
5. Identifying a false cause and effect (post hoc ergo propter hoc)
6. Asserting that everyone agrees (argumentum ad populum, bandwagoning)
7. Creating a false dilemma (either-or fallacy) in which the situation is oversimplified, also called false dichotomy
8. Selectively using facts (card stacking)
9. Making false or misleading comparisons (false equivalence and false analogy)
10. Generalizing quickly and sloppily (hasty generalization)
11. Using an argument's connections to other concepts or people to support or refute it, also called "guilt by association" (association fallacy)
12. Claiming that a lack of proof counts as proof (appeal to ignorance)

In humor, errors of reasoning are used for comical purposes. Groucho Marx used fallacies of amphiboly, for instance, to make ironic statements; Gary Larson and Scott Adams employed fallacious reasoning in many of their cartoons. Wes Boyer and Samuel Stoddard have written a humorous essay teaching students how to be persuasive by means of a whole host of informal and formal fallacies.[45]

When someone uses logical fallacies intentionally to mislead in academic, political, or other high-stakes contexts, the breach of trust calls into question the authority and intellectual integrity of that person.[46]

Assessment: pragmatic theory

See also: Argumentation scheme

According to the pragmatic theory,[47] a fallacy can be either a heuristic error or a ploy used intentionally to unfairly win an argument. There are always two parties to an argument containing a fallacy: the perpetrator and the intended victim.

The dialogue framework required to support the pragmatic theory of fallacy is built on the presumption that argumentative dialogue has both an adversarial component and a collaborative component. A dialogue has individual goals for each participant, but also shared goals that apply to all participants. A fallacy of the second kind is seen as more than simply violation of a rule of reasonable dialogue. It is also a deceptive tactic of argumentation, based on sleight-of-hand. Aristotle explicitly compared contentious reasoning to unfair fighting in athletic contest. But the roots of the pragmatic theory go back even further in history to the Sophists. The pragmatic theory finds its roots in the Aristotelian conception of a fallacy as a sophistical refutation, but also supports the view that many of the types of arguments traditionally labeled as fallacies are in fact reasonable techniques of argumentation that can be used, in many cases, to support legitimate goals of dialogue. Hence, under the pragmatic approach, each case needs to be analyzed individually to determine whether the argument is fallacious or reasonable.

See also

• 
  Philosophy portal
• 
  Psychology portal

Lists

• List of cognitive biases – Systematic patterns of deviation from norm or rationality in judgment
• List of fallacies – Reasoning that are logically incorrect or unsound
• List of memory biases
• List of paradoxes – List of statements that appear to contradict themselves
• All pages with titles containing Fallacy
• All pages with titles containing Fallacious
• Pragma-dialectics § Rules for critical discussion

Concepts

• Aporia – State of puzzlement or expression of doubt, in philosophy and rhetoric
• Anti-pattern – Common response to a recurring problem that is usually ineffective or counterproductive
• Argument map – Visual representation of the structure of an argument
• Argumentation theory – Study of how conclusions are reached through logical reasoning; one of four rhetorical modes
• Association fallacy – Informal inductive fallacy
• Cognitive bias – Systematic pattern of deviation from norm or rationality in judgment
• Cognitive distortion – Exaggerated or irrational thought pattern
• Critical thinking – Analysis of facts to form a judgment
• Demagogue – Politician or orator who panders to fears and emotions of the public
• Evidence – Material supporting an assertion
• Fallacies of definition
• False (logic) – Possessing negative truth value
• False premise – Incorrect proposition that forms the basis of an argument
• False statement
• Illusion – Distortion of the perception of reality
• Inference objection
• Inquiry – Any process that has the aim of augmenting knowledge, resolving doubt, or solving a problem
• Jumping to conclusions
• Lemma
• Lies, damned lies, and statistics
• Mathematical fallacy – Certain type of mistaken proof
• Paradox – Statement that apparently contradicts itself
• Prosecutor's fallacy – Fallacy of statistical reasoning
• Sophist – Teacher in ancient Greece (5th century BC)
• Soundness – Logical term meaning that an argument is valid and its premises are true
• Truth – Property of being in accord with fact or reality
• Validity – Argument whose conclusion must be true if its premises are
• Victim blaming – Social phenomenon

Works

• Attacking Faulty Reasoning
• Straight and Crooked Thinking
• "Why I Do Not Attend Case Conferences"

References

1. ^ van Eemeren, Frans; Garssen, Bart; Meuffels, Bert (2009). Fallacies and Judgments of Reasonableness Empirical Research Concerning the Pragma-Dialectical Discussion Rules. Dordrecht: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-90-481-2614-9. ISBN 978-90-481-2613-2.
2. ^ a b Gensler, Harry J. (2010). The A to Z of Logic. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 74. ISBN 9780810875968.
3. ^ Woods, John (2004). "Who Cares About the Fallacies?". The Death of Argument. Applied Logic Series. Vol. 32. pp. 3–23. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-2712-3_1. ISBN 9789048167005.
4. ^ a b c Dowden, Bradley. "Fallacy". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 17 February 2016.
5. ^ Bustamente, Thomas; Dahlman, Christian, eds. (2015). Argument types and fallacies in legal argumentation. Heidelberg: Springer International Publishing. p. x. ISBN 978-3-319-16147-1.
6. ^ a b c Garns, Rudy (1997). "Informal Fallacies". Northern Kentucky University. Archived from the original on 2017-02-01. Retrieved 2013-09-10.
7. ^ McMullin, Rian E. (2000). The new handbook of cognitive therapy techniques ([Rev. ed.] ed.). New York: W. W. Norton. ISBN 978-0393703139. OCLC 41580357.
8. ^ McMurtry, John (December 1990). "The mass media: An analysis of their system of fallacy". Interchange. 21 (4): 49–66. doi:10.1007/BF01810092. S2CID 144780081.
9. ^ DeLancey, Craig, Ph.D. "Evaluating Arguments—Distinguishing between reasonable and fallacious tactics" (PDF). oswego.edu. self-published. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2013-09-03. Retrieved 7 March 2018.
10. ^ Godden, David; Zenker, Frank (2015-03-05). "Denying Antecedents and Affirming Consequents: The State of the Art". Informal Logic. 35 (1): 88. doi:10.22329/il.v35i1.4173. ISSN 0824-2577.
11. ^ Damer, T. Edward (2009), Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-free Arguments (6th ed.), Belmont, California: Wadsworth, p. 52, ISBN 978-0-495-09506-4
12. ^ Frans van, Eemeren (2018). Argumentation Theory : a Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Springer International Publishing. ISBN 978-3-319-95380-9. OCLC 1048664485.
13. ^ Pirie, Madsen (2006). How to Win Every Argument: The Use and Abuse of Logic. A&C Black. p. 46. ISBN 978-0-8264-9006-3. Retrieved 10 September 2015.
14. ^ "fallacy". Encyclopedia Britannica. Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 13 June 2017.
15. ^ a b c d van Eemeren, Frans; Garssen, Bart; Meuffels, Bert (2009). "1". Fallacies and judgements of reasonableness, Empirical Research Concerning the Pragma-Dialectical Discussion Rules. Dordrecht: Springer Science+Business Media B.V. ISBN 978-90-481-2613-2.
16. ^ "Aristotle's original 13 fallacies". The Non Sequitur. March 13, 2008. Retrieved 28 May 2013.
17. ^ "Aristotle's 13 fallacies". www.logiclaw.co.uk. Archived from the original on 2018-07-18. Retrieved 2017-12-12.
18. ^ "PHIL 495: Philosophical Writing (Spring 2008), Texas A&M University". Archived from the original on 2008-09-05. Retrieved 2013-09-10.
19. ^ Phillips, Stephen (2019), Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), "Epistemology in Classical Indian Philosophy", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2019 ed.), Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, retrieved 2021-05-07
20. ^ Mahamahopadhyaya Satisa Chandra Vidyabhushana. The Nyaya Sutras Of Gautama (English).
21. ^ Ganeri, Jonardon (2019), Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), "Analytic Philosophy in Early Modern India", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2019 ed.), Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, retrieved 2021-05-07
22. ^ Coffey, P. (1912). The Science of Logic. Longmans, Green, and Company. p. 302. LCCN 12018756. Retrieved 2016-02-22.
23. ^ Freedman, David A. (2004). "Ecological Fallacy". In Lewis-Beck, Michael S.; Bryman, Alan; Liao, Tim Futing (eds.). Encyclopedia of Social Science Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. pp. 293–295. ISBN 978-0761923633.
24. ^ a b c d Boudry, Maarten (2017). "The Fallacy Fork: Why It's Time to Get Rid of Fallacy Theory". Skeptical Inquirer. 41 (5): 46–51.
25. ^ Eemeren, Frans H. van; Garssen, Bart; Krabbe, Erik C. W.; Snoeck Henkemans, A. Francisca; Verheij, Bart; Wagemans, Jean H. M. (2014). Handbook of Argumentation Theory (Revised ed.). New York: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-90-481-9473-5. ISBN 9789048194728. OCLC 871004444.
26. ^ Copi, Irving M.; Cohen, Carl (2005). Introduction to Logic (12 ed.). Pearson Education, Inc. ISBN 978-0-13-189834-9. p.125
27. ^ Neyman, J. (1937-08-30). "Outline of a Theory of Statistical Estimation Based on the Classical Theory of Probability". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences. 236 (767): 333–380. Bibcode:1937RSPTA.236..333N. doi:10.1098/rsta.1937.0005. ISSN 0080-4614.
28. ^ Walton, Douglas (2015-09-02). "The Basic Slippery Slope Argument". Informal Logic. 35 (3): 273–311. doi:10.22329/il.v35i3.4286. ISSN 2293-734X.
29. ^ Walton, Douglas (1992). Slippery Slope Arguments. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0198239253.
30. ^ Govier, Trudy (June 1982). "What's Wrong with Slippery Slope Arguments?". Canadian Journal of Philosophy. 12 (2): 303–316. doi:10.1080/00455091.1982.10715799. ISSN 0045-5091. S2CID 170107849.
31. ^ Kornprobst, Markus (2007). "Comparing Apples and Oranges? Leading and Misleading Uses of Historical Analogies". Millennium — Journal of International Studies. 36: 29–49. doi:10.1177/03058298070360010301. S2CID 145785208.
32. ^ Lewiński, Marcin; Oswald, Steve (2013-12-01). "When and how do we deal with straw men? A normative and cognitive pragmatic account". Journal of Pragmatics. Biases and constraints in communication: Argumentation, persuasion and manipulation. 59: 164–177. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2013.05.001. ISSN 0378-2166.
33. ^ Aikin, Scott F.; Casey, John P. (2016-10-01). "Straw Men, Iron Men, and Argumentative Virtue". Topoi. 35 (2): 431–440. doi:10.1007/s11245-015-9308-5. ISSN 1572-8749. S2CID 145321942.
34. ^ Talisse, Robert; Aikin, Scott F. (2006-09-01). "Two Forms of the Straw Man". Argumentation. 20 (3): 345–352. doi:10.1007/s10503-006-9017-8. ISSN 1572-8374. S2CID 15523437.
35. ^ Schiappa, Edward (1991). Protagoras and Logos: A Study in Greek Philosophy and Rhetoric. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press. ISBN 978-0872497580.
36. ^ Protagoras (1972). The Older Sophists. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Co. ISBN 978-0872205567.
37. ^ a b Meho, Lokman I. (2007). "The Rise and Rise of Citation Analysis". Physics World. January: 32–36. arXiv:physics/0701012. Bibcode:2007physics...1012M. doi:10.1088/2058-7058/20/1/33. S2CID 16532275.
38. ^ Jensen, Michael (June 15, 2007). Riley, Michael G. (ed.). "The New Metrics of Scholarly Authority". The Chronicle of Higher Education. The Chron. ISSN 0009-5982. OCLC 1554535. Retrieved 28 October 2013.
39. ^ a b Baveye, Phillippe C. (2010). "Sticker Shock and Looming Tsunami: The High Cost of Academic Serials in Perspective". Journal of Scholarly Publishing. 41 (2): 191–215. doi:10.1353/scp.0.0074. S2CID 145424660.
40. ^ National Communication Journal (2013). Impact Factors, Journal Quality, and Communication Journals: A Report for the Council of Communication Associations (PDF). Washington, D.C.: National Communication Association. Archived from the original (PDF) on April 4, 2016. Retrieved 2016-02-22.
41. ^ Garfield, Eugene (1993). "What Citations Tell us About Canadian Research". Canadian Journal of Library and Information Science. 18 (4): 34.
42. ^ Stein, Zachary (October 2008). "Myth Busting and Metric Making: Refashioning the Discourse about Development". Integral Leadership Review. 8 (5). Archived from the original on October 30, 2013. Retrieved October 28, 2013.
43. ^ Allen, Henry L. (1997). "Faculty Workload and Productivity: Ethnic and Gender Disparities" (PDF). NEA 1997 Almanac of Higher Education: 39. Archived from the original (PDF) on July 7, 2015. Retrieved October 29, 2013.
44. ^ Shewan, Edward (2003). "Soundness of Argument". Applications of Grammar: Principles of Effective Communication (2nd ed.). Christian Liberty Press. ISBN 978-1-930367-28-9. Retrieved February 22, 2016.
45. ^ Boyer, Web; Stoddard, Samuel. "How to Be Persuasive". Rink Works. Archived from the original on July 27, 2018. Retrieved December 5, 2012.
46. ^ Habick, Timothy, and Linda Cook. (2018) AICPA Test Development Fairness Guidelines. Association of International Certified Public Accounts, Ewing, NJ.[page needed]
47. ^ Walton, Douglas N. (1995). A Pragmatic Theory of Fallacy. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press. p. 324. ISBN 9780817307981.

Further reading

• C. L. Hamblin, Fallacies, Methuen London, 1970. reprinted by Vale Press in 1998. ISBN 0916475247.
• Hans V. Hansen; Robert C. Pinto (1995). Fallacies: classical and contemporary readings. Penn State Press. ISBN 978-0271014173.
• Frans van Eemeren; Bart Garssen; Bert Meuffels (2009). Fallacies and Judgments of Reasonableness: Empirical Research Concerning the Pragma-Dialectical Discussion. Springer. ISBN 978-9048126132.
• Douglas N. Walton, Informal logic: A handbook for critical argumentation. Cambridge University Press, 1989.[ISBN missing]
• Douglas, Walton (1987). Informal Fallacies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.[ISBN missing]
• Walton, Douglas (1995). A Pragmatic Theory of Fallacy. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.[ISBN missing]
• Walton, Douglas (2010). "Why Fallacies Appear to Be Better Arguments than They Are". Informal Logic. 30 (2): 159–184. doi:10.22329/il.v30i2.2868.
• John Woods (2004). The death of argument: fallacies in agent based reasoning. Springer. ISBN 978-1402026638.
• Woods, John (2013). Errors of Reasoning: Naturalizing the Logic of Inference. London: College Publications. ISBN 978-1848901148
• Fearnside, W. Ward and William B. Holther, Fallacy: The Counterfeit of Argument, 1959.[ISBN missing]
• Vincent F. Hendricks, Thought 2 Talk: A Crash Course in Reflection and Expression, New York: Automatic Press / VIP, 2005, ISBN 8799101378
• D. H. Fischer, Historians' Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought, Harper Torchbooks, 1970.[ISBN missing]
• Warburton Nigel, Thinking from A to Z, Routledge 1998.[ISBN missing]
• Sagan, Carl, "The Demon-Haunted World: Science As a Candle in the Dark". Ballantine Books, 1997 ISBN 0345409469, 480 pgs. 1996 hardback edition: Random House, ISBN 039453512X, xv+457 pages plus addenda insert (some printings). Ch. 12.

Historical texts

• Aristotle, On Sophistical Refutations, De Sophistici Elenchi. library.adelaide.edu.au
• William of Ockham, Summa of Logic (c. 1323) Part III.4.
• John Buridan, Summulae de dialectica Book VII.
• Francis Bacon, the doctrine of the idols in Novum Organum Scientiarum, Aphorisms concerning The Interpretation of Nature and the Kingdom of Man, xxiii ff Archived 2020-02-14 at the Wayback Machine. fly.hiwaay.net
• Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Controversy | Die Kunst, Recht zu behalten – The Art Of Controversy (bilingual), (also known as "Schopenhauers 38 stratagems"). gutenberg.org
• John Stuart Mill, A System of Logic – Raciocinative and Inductive. Book 5, Chapter 7, Fallacies of Confusion. la.utexas.edu

External links

Look up fallacy in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

Wikiquote has quotations related to Fallacy.

Wikiversity has learning resources about Recognizing Fallacies

• Hansen, Hans. "Fallacies". In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
• Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). "Informal logic". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
• "Fallacy". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
• Fallacy at PhilPapers
• Humbug! The skeptic's field guide to spotting fallacies in thinking – textbook on fallacies. scribd.com
• List of fallacies with clear examples, infidels.org
• Interactive Syllogistic Machine A web based syllogistic machine for exploring fallacies, figures, and modes of syllogisms.
• Logical Fallacies and the Art of Debate, csun.edu
• Stephen Downes Guide to the Logical Fallacies, onegoodmove.org
• Explain fallacies, what they are and how to avoid them
• Fallacy Files
• Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Fallacy" . Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 10 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 153–154.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fallacy&oldid=1125696501"

Page 2

Internet commentators paid by the Chinese Communist Party

The 50 Cent Party, also known as the 50 Cent Army or wumao (/ˈwuːmaʊ/ WOO-mow), are Internet commentators who are paid by the authorities of the People's Republic of China to spread the propaganda of the governing Chinese Communist Party (CCP).[1][2][3][4][5] It was created during the early phases of the Internet's rollout to the wider public in China.

The name is derived from the fact that such commentators are paid RMB¥0.50 for every post.[6][7][8] These commentators create comments or articles on popular Chinese social media networks that are intended to derail discussions which are critical of the CCP, promoting narratives that serve the government's interests and insulting or spreading misinformation about political opponents of the Chinese government, both domestic and abroad.[9][10][11] Some of these commentators have labeled themselves ziganwu (Chinese: 自干五, short for 自带干粮的五毛, zì dài gānliáng de wǔmáo, lit. 'wumao who bring their own dry rations'), claiming they are not paid by authorities and express their support for the Chinese government out of their own volition.[12]

Authors of a paper published in 2017 in the American Political Science Review estimate that the Chinese government fabricates 488 million social media posts per year. In contrast to common assumptions, the 50 Cent Party consists mostly of paid bureaucrats who respond to government directives and rarely defend their government from criticism or engage in direct arguments because "... the goal of this massive secretive operation is instead to distract the public and change the subject."[13] Around 80% of the analysed posts involve pro-China cheerleading with inspirational slogans, and 13% involve general praise and suggestions on governmental policies.[14] Despite the common allegation of the commentators getting paid for their posts, the paper suggested there was "no evidence" that they are paid anything for their posts, instead being required to do so as a part of their official party duties.[15]

Research by professors at Harvard, Stanford, and UC San Diego indicated a "massive secretive operation" to fill China's Internet with propaganda, and has resulted in some 488 million posts written by fake social media accounts, representing about 0.6% of the 80 billion posts generated on Chinese social media. To maximize their influence, such pro-government comments are made largely during times of intense online debate, and when online protests have a possibility of transforming into real life actions.[14] The colloquial term wumao has also been used by some English speakers outside of China as an insult against people with perceived pro-CCP bias.[16][17]

History

See also: Chinese information operations and information warfare

In October 2004, the local CCP Propaganda Department of Changsha started hiring Internet commentators, in one of the earliest known uses of professional Internet commentators.[18][deprecated source]

In March 2005, the Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China enacted a systematic censorship of Chinese college bulletin board systems. The popular "Little Lily" BBS, run by Nanjing University, was forced to close. As a new system was prepared to be launched, school officials hired students as part-time web commentators, paid from the university's work-study funds, to search the forum for undesirable information and actively counter it with Party-friendly viewpoints. In the following months, party leaders from Jiangsu began hiring their own teams.[19] By mid-2007, web commentator teams recruited by schools, and party organizations were common across China. Shanghai Normal University employed undergraduates to monitor for signs of dissent and post on university forums.[20] These commentators not only operate within political discussions, but also in general discussions.[19][20] Afterwards, some schools and local governments also started to build similar teams.[21][22][23]

On 23 January 2007, Chinese leader Hu Jintao demanded a "reinforcement of ideological and public opinion front construction and positive publicity" at the 38th collective learning of Politburo.[24] Large Chinese websites and local governments have been requested to publish the sayings of Hu, and select "comrades with good political quality" to form "teams of Internet commentators" by the CCP Central Committee (中共中央办公厅) and General Office of the State Council (国务院办公厅).[19][25]

Negative reporting of local authorities has increased on the Internet since then.[26] In one instance described on the China Digital Times, the Jiaozuo (Henan) City Public Security Bureau established a mechanism to analyse public opinion after criticism of the police handling of a traffic incident appeared on the Internet. The Bureau responded with 120 staff calling for the truth to be revealed in line with the public opinion, which gradually shifted and eventually supported the police position, denouncing the original poster.[26][27] In the aftermath of the 2008 Guizhou riot, Internet forums were filled with posts critical of the local authorities; the China News Weekly later reported that "the major task of the propaganda group was to organize commentators to past [sic] posts on websites to guide online public opinions."[27]

In 2010, the Shanghai Communist Youth League's official website published a summary, saying that there were more than 200 topics by Shanghai Municipal Authorities' Internet commentators posted at People's Daily, Xinhua News Agency, Eastday (东方网), Sina and Tianya after many incidents in 2009, including the Lotus Riverside incident, the forced installation of Green Dam Youth Escort software, the Putuo Urban Administrative incident, the control of H1N1, the Shanghai entrapment incident (钓鱼执法), the self-immolation of Pan Rong (潘蓉), etc. It was praised by the Shanghai Internet Publicity Office.[28]

In December 2014, a Chinese blogger hacked into and published email archives for the Internet Propaganda Department of Zhanggong District in Ganzhou, including over 2,700 emails of 50 Cent Party Internet commentators.[29][30] For instance, on 16 January 2014, Shi Wenqing, secretary of the Ganzhou branch of the CCP, held a televised "Internet exchange" in which he answered questions from a local news website forum; 50 Cent Party commentators were instructed to post seven discussion points, such as (translated) "I really admire Party Secretary Shi, what a capable and effective Party Secretary! I hope he can be the father of Ganzhou for years to come."[31]

Range of operation

The Ministry of Culture of the People's Republic of China now holds regular training sessions, where participants are required to pass an exam after which they are issued a job certification.[19] As of 2008, the total number of 50-cent operatives was estimated to be in the tens of thousands,[1] and possibly as high as 280,000–300,000.[19][32] Every large Chinese website is instructed by the Information Office to create a trained team of Internet commentators.[19]

According to the Chinese Communists' opinions of the recruitment of university Work Committee (tentative), the university Internet commentators are mainly selected from cadres or student cadres at the local CCP Publicity Department of universities, Youth League, Office of Academic Affairs, Network Center, Admissions Employment Department, Political Theory Department, Teaching Department and other units.[33]

The court of Qinghe District, Huai'an organized a team of 12 commentators.[34] Gansu Province hired 650 commentators, sorted by their writing abilities.[35] Suqian Municipal Publicity Department's first 26 commentators' team were reported by Yangtse Evening Post in April 2005.[36] According to high-profile independent Chinese blogger Li Ming, the pro-Chinese government web commentators must number "at least in the tens of thousands".[37]

A 2016 Harvard study estimated that the group posts about 488 million social media comments per year.[38]

According to an article published by Xiao Qiang on his website China Digital Times, a leaked propaganda directive, sent to 50 Cent Party Internet commentators, stated their objective was the following:[39][40]

In order to circumscribe the influence of Taiwanese democracy, in order to progress further in the work of guiding public opinion, and in accordance with the requirements established by higher authorities to "be strategic, be skilled," we hope that internet commentators conscientiously study the mindset of netizens, grasp international developments, and better perform the work of being an internet commentator. For this purpose, this notice is promulgated as set forth below:

(1) To the extent possible make America the target of criticism. Play down the existence of Taiwan. (2) Do not directly confront [the idea of] democracy; rather, frame the argument in terms of "what kind of system can truly implement democracy.” (3) To the extent possible, choose various examples in Western countries of violence and unreasonable circumstances to explain how democracy is not well-suited to capitalism. (4) Use America's and other countries' interference in international affairs to explain how Western democracy is actually an invasion of other countries and [how the West] is forcibly pushing [on other countries] Western values. (5) Use the bloody and tear-stained history of a [once] weak people [i.e., China] to stir up pro-Party and patriotic emotions. (6) Increase the exposure that positive developments inside China receive; further accommodate the work of maintaining [social] stability.[39][40]

Terms

There is an alternate official term for the Internet Commentator, as well as several unofficial terms coined by netizens for them:

Among those names, "50 Cent Party" (五毛党) was the most common and pejorative unofficial term.[42]

The term is applied by Chinese netizens to any person who blatantly expresses pro-CCP thoughts online.[7]

According to Foreign Policy, Chinese cyberspace is also noted for its ideological contests between "rightists" – reformists who advocate Western-style democratic reforms, versus "leftists" – conservatives and neo-Confucianists who advocate Chinese nationalism and restructured socialism. In this backdrop, rightists sometimes refer to leftists derogatorily as "50 Centers", regardless of their actual employment background.[14]

The Hong Kong-based Apple Daily reported that although a search for "五毛党" ("50 Cent Party" in Chinese) on a search engine produces results, most were inaccessible and had been deleted.[43]

Effects and opinions

The Internet commentator/50 Cent Party's activities were described by CCP general secretary and Chinese president Hu Jintao as "a new pattern of public-opinion guidance";[44][45] they represent a shift from simply erasing dissenting opinions to guiding dialogue. In 2010, a contributor to The Huffington Post stated that some comments she received on one of her posts were from the 50 Cent Party;[46] she also stated that the 50 Cent Party monitors popular US websites, news sites and blogs and posts comments that advance Chinese governmental interests.[46]

David Wertime of Foreign Policy argued that the narrative where a large army of paid Internet commentators are behind China's poor public dialogue with its critics is "Orwellian, yet strangely comforting". Rather, many of the Chinese netizens spreading nationalist sentiment online are not paid, but often mean what they say.[14]

The colloquial term wumao, from the Chinese pronunciation of the term, has been used as an insult by some English speakers against people with perceived pro-CCP or pro-Chinese views,[16] and has been cited in discussions of Sinophobia.[17] An analyst at the Wilson Center has noted that ethnic Chinese are more likely to be called wumao than other groups of people in the English-speaking world; she attributed some of this to racism.[47] In Australia, the term has been used as an insult amidst the rise of anti-Asian and anti-Chinese sentiments and the ongoing debate over increasing "Chinese influence" in the country.[48]

Counter measures

Facebook and Twitter have been removing accounts and pages that are of "coordinated state-backed operation".[49] In June 2020, Twitter has removed 170,000 accounts which targeted 2019–20 Hong Kong protests.[50]

See also

• 
  China portal
• 
  Internet portal

In China

• Internet censorship in China
• Internet Water Army, private astroturfing from paid Chinese writers paralleling the 50 Cent Party
• Great Firewall, a Chinese system to censor and regulate the Internet
• Little Pink, Chinese nationalist netizens
• PLA Unit 61398, the hacking and malware implantation unit of the People's Liberation Army

Elsewhere

• Astroturfing, a form of advocacy in support of a political, organizational, or corporate agenda, designed to give the appearance of a "grassroots" movement
• State-sponsored Internet sockpuppetry, a list of other similar programs internationally
  • U.S. government edits of Wikipedia
• Operation Earnest Voice, U.S. government program aimed at spreading pro-U.S. propaganda on websites frequented in the Middle East
• Russian web brigades, Russian state-sponsored propaganda trolls
  • Internet Research Agency, a Russian-owned company engaged in online influence operations
• AK Trolls, Turkish state-sponsored propaganda trolls
• Public opinion brigades, state-sponsored propaganda party working for the Communist Party of Vietnam
• Force 47, Vietnamese military unit that disseminates pro-regime propaganda and hacks anti-government websites

References

1. ^ a b Bristow, Michael (16 December 2008). "China's internet 'spin doctors'". BBC News Online. Archived from the original on 15 February 2009. Retrieved 30 June 2009.
2. ^ "Internet Spin for Stability Enforcers" Archived 26 October 2011 at the Wayback Machine, Sophie Beach, China Digital Times, 25 May 2010
3. ^ Meiu, George Paul; Comaroff, Jean; Comaroff, John L. (25 September 2020). Ethnicity, Commodity, In/Corporation. Indiana University Press. ISBN 9780253047960 – via Google Books.
4. ^ "Penny for Your Thoughts: Searching for the 50 Cent Party on Sina Weibo" (PDF). Northeastern University.
5. ^ Steinfeld, Jemimah (17 December 2018). "The new "civil service" trolls who aim to distract: The government in China is using its civil servants to act as internet trolls. It's a hard management task generating 450 million social media posts a year". Index on Censorship. 47 (4): 102–104. doi:10.1177/0306422018819361. ISSN 0306-4220.
6. ^ China employs army of piece-rate ‘netizens’ for online thought control Archived 22 July 2011 at the Wayback Machine. Tibetan Review. 2 January 2009
7. ^ a b Vembu, Venkatesan (2 January 2009). "Big Brother 2.0 is here". Daily News and Analysis. India. Retrieved 11 January 2009.
8. ^ Cook, Sarah; Shum, Maggie (11 October 2011). "China's growing army of paid internet commentators". Freedom House. Archived from the original on 13 October 2011.
9. ^ "China's Paid Trolls: Meet the 50-Cent Party". New Statesman. Archived from the original on 28 August 2016. Retrieved 27 August 2016.
10. ^ Alex Linder (20 May 2016). "Chinese trolls write 488 million fake social media posts a year and don't even earn 50 cents for it". Shanghaiist. Archived from the original on 2 July 2016. Retrieved 27 August 2016.
11. ^ "China Banned The Term '50 Cents' To Stop Discussion Of An Orwellian Propaganda Program". Business Insider. Archived from the original on 16 August 2016. Retrieved 27 August 2016.
12. ^ Wong, Tessa (20 October 2021). "China: The patriotic 'ziganwu' bloggers who attack the West". BBC News. Retrieved 26 November 2021.
13. ^ King, Gary; Pan, Jennifer; Roberts, Margaret E. (2017). "How the Chinese Government Fabricates Social Media Posts for Strategic Distraction, Not Engaged Argument" (PDF). American Political Science Review. 111 (3): 484–501. doi:10.1017/S0003055417000144. ISSN 0003-0554.
14. ^ a b c d Meet the Chinese Trolls Pumping Out 488 Million Fake Social Media Posts Archived 7 March 2017 at the Wayback Machine. Foreign Policy. 19 May 2016
15. ^ Gallagher, Sean (13 June 2016). "Red astroturf: Chinese government makes millions of fake social media posts". Ars Technica. Archived from the original on 7 September 2017. Retrieved 14 June 2016.
16. ^ a b Christina Michelle Kleisath (2012). Tibet Beyond Black and White: Racial Formations and Transnational Collusions (PDF). University of Washington - Department of Anthropology. p. 185.
17. ^ a b Bertie Vidgen; Matt Hall; Ella Guest (2020). Annotation Codebook for East Asian Prejudice (part of a paper titled: Detecting East Asian Prejudice on Social Media). The Alan Turing Institute, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Surrey. p. 13. doi:10.5281/zenodo.3816667.
18. ^ Publicity Department of Hefei (24 May 2006). "关于南昌、长沙、郑州宣传文化工作的考察报告 (An Investigative Report Regarding Cultural Propaganda Work in Nanchang, Changsha, and Zhengzhou)" (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 12 March 2021. Screenshot Archived 17 July 2011 at the Wayback Machine
19. ^ a b c d e f Bandurski, David (July 2008). "China's Guerrilla War for the Web". Far Eastern Economic Review. Archived from the original on 22 January 2009. Retrieved 11 January 2009.
20. ^ a b As Chinese Students Go Online, Little Sister Is Watching Archived 15 March 2017 at the Wayback Machine. The New York Times. 9 May 2006
21. ^ 宿迁26名网评员今上岗 (in Chinese). sohu. Archived from the original on 2 February 2016. Retrieved 10 September 2010.
22. ^ 关于进一步加强互联网管理工作的实施意见 (in Chinese). Government of Golog, Qinghai. Archived from the original on 7 July 2011. Retrieved 10 September 2010.
23. ^ 巴中市人事局采取四大措施加强网络舆情监控 (in Chinese). Sichuan Provincial People's Government. Archived from the original on 16 March 2016. Retrieved 10 September 2010.
24. ^ 胡锦涛：以创新的精神加强网络文化建设和管理 (in Chinese). xinhua. Archived from the original on 30 August 2010. Retrieved 10 September 2010.
25. ^ 特稿：党布阵网络人民战争 (in Chinese). dwnews. Archived from the original on 10 July 2011. Retrieved 10 September 2010.
26. ^ a b Nan, Wu. Chinese Bloggers on the History and Influence of the “Fifty Cent Party” Archived 13 July 2011 at the Wayback Machine. China Digital Times. 15 May 2008
27. ^ a b c Zhong, Wu. China's Internet awash with state spies Archived 6 January 2010 at the Wayback Machine. Asia Times Online. 14 August 2008
28. ^ "市级机关团工委2009年度工作总结 (2009 summary of works of the Municipal Authorities Youth League Working Committee)" (in Chinese). Shanghai Communist Youth League official site. 20 January 2010. Archived from the original on 22 December 2015. Retrieved 20 January 2010. 2009年，市级机关网评员在市网宣办的业务指导下，先后参与了莲花河畔景苑倒楼事件、强制安装"绿坝"网络屏蔽软件、普陀区城管打人事件、甲型 H1N1 流感防控、"倒钩"执法事件、闵行区潘蓉自焚事件、地铁事故频发等以涉沪舆情为重点的网上舆论引导工作，在人民网、新华网、东方网及新浪、天涯社区等国内重点网站、主要商业网站、大型网络社区。发帖、跟帖、转帖200余篇，东方网评论频道录用各类网评文章20余篇，工作得到市网宣办的肯定。
29. ^ Thousands of Local Internet Propaganda Emails Leaked Archived 2 January 2015 at the Wayback Machine, China Digital Times, 3 December 2014.
30. ^ Zhanggong Leaks: History is the Best Judge Archived 2 January 2015 at the Wayback Machine, China Digital Times, 10 December 2014.
31. ^ Hacked emails reveal China’s elaborate and absurd internet propaganda machine Archived 1 January 2015 at the Wayback Machine, Quartz, 18 December 2014.
32. ^ Fareed, Malik. China joins a turf war Archived 28 January 2017 at the Wayback Machine. The Guardian. 22 September 2008
33. ^ "为认真贯彻落实《中共中央、国务院关于进一步加强和改进大学生思想政治教育的意见》（中发〔2004〕16号）和《教育部、共青团中央关于进一步加强高等学校校园网络管理工作的意见》(教社政〔2004〕17号)精神，牢牢把握网上舆论主导权，为我省高等教育改革发展稳定提供良好的舆论环境，努力构建社会主义和谐校园，现就加强高校网络评论员队伍建设提出以下意见。"
34. ^ 清河法院组建互联网网评工作队 (in Chinese). Huai'an Intermediate People's Court. Archived from the original on 14 April 2010.
35. ^ "甘肅將建650人網絡評論員隊伍引導輿論". Sina. 20 January 2010. Archived from the original on 21 July 2011. Retrieved 4 March 2011.
36. ^ "宿迁26名网评员今上岗". Sohu. 29 April 2005. Archived from the original on 2 February 2016. Retrieved 4 March 2011.
37. ^ "China's web spin doctors spread Beijing's message". Sydney Morning Herald. 12 May 2011. Archived from the original on 19 September 2011. Retrieved 28 November 2011.
38. ^ "China 'flooding' social media with fake posts (20 May 2016)". BBC News. Archived from the original on 22 May 2016. Retrieved 22 May 2016.
39. ^ a b Qiang, Xiao (25 June 2011). "Leaked Propaganda Directives and Banned "Future" | China Digital Times (CDT)". China Digital Times. Archived from the original on 14 July 2011. Retrieved 28 November 2011.[self-published source]
40. ^ a b http://chinadigitaltimes.net/chinese/2011/06/网评员《上级通知》/ (in Chinese)[self-published source]
41. ^ Elgan, Mike (8 January 2009). "How China's '50 Cent Army' Could Wreck Web 2.0". Datamation. JupiterOnlineMedia. Archived from the original on 16 January 2009. Retrieved 11 January 2009.
42. ^ Garnaut, John (14 July 2010). "China's plan to use internet for propaganda". The Age. Australia. Archived from the original on 18 August 2010. Retrieved 17 October 2010.
43. ^ "China hires, trains 'online commentators' to influence public opinion – daily". Apple Daily. 5 October 2007
44. ^ Podger, Corrinne (21 August 2008). "China marshalls army of bloggers". Radio Australia. Archived from the original on 1 December 2008. Retrieved 11 January 2009.
45. ^ "Propaganda leaders scurry off to carry out the "spirit" of Hu Jintao's "important" media speech". China Media Project. 25 June 2008. Archived from the original on 28 September 2011. Retrieved 11 January 2009.
46. ^ a b Usha, Haley (4 October 2010). "China's Fifty Cent Party for Internet Propaganda". Huffington Post. Archived from the original on 7 April 2011. Retrieved 19 February 2011.
47. ^ "What's a WUMAO anyway? (mentioned at 1:28, 2:57)". Public Radio International. January 2020. Retrieved 14 November 2020.
48. ^ Marshallsea, Trevor (22 June 2018). "Is racism worsening Australia's China influence row?". BBC. Archived from the original on 22 June 2018. Retrieved 23 June 2018.
49. ^ Lee, Dave (20 August 2019). "Twitter and Facebook block HK misinformation". BBC News. Retrieved 19 June 2020.
50. ^ "Disclosing networks of state-linked information operations we've removed". Twitter Blog. 12 June 2020. Archived from the original on 11 June 2020. Retrieved 19 June 2020.

Further reading

• Han, Rongbin (2015). "Manufacturing Consent in Cyberspace: China's "Fifty-Cent Army"". Journal of Current Chinese Affairs. 44 (2): 105–134. doi:10.1177/186810261504400205. - PDF
• King, Gary; Pan, Jennifer; Roberts, Margaret E. (2017). "How the Chinese Government Fabricates Social Media Posts for Strategic Distraction, not Engaged Argument". American Political Science Review. 111 (3): 484–501. doi:10.1017/S0003055417000144. S2CID 84837873. (Article PDF, supplementary appendix, and symposium info)

External links

• China Digital Times articles related to the 50 Cent Party

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=50_Cent_Party&oldid=1126045224"