The DOI matches its OpenAlex record.
A multi-dimensional approach to disinformation : Report of the independent High level Group on fake news and online disinformation
Open accessAbstract
In January 2018, the European Commission set up a highlevel group of experts («the HLEG») to advise on policy initiatives to counter fake news and disinformation spread online. The HLEG consisted of 39 members and was chaired by Prof. Dr. Madeleine de Cock Buning. Its members had different backgrounds, including academia and journalism, written press and broadcasting organizations, online platforms as well as civil society and fact-checking organizations. The HLEG’s tasks were to advise the Commission on all issues arising in the context of false information spread across traditional and social media and on possible ways to cope with its social and political consequences. The main deliverable of the HLEG was a report designed to review best practices in the light of fundamental principles, and suitable responses stemming from such principles. The analysis presented in this Report starts from a shared understanding of disinformation as a phenomenon that goes well beyond the term «fake news». This term has been appropriated and used misleadingly by powerful actors to dismiss coverage that is simply found disagreeable. Disinformation as defined in this Report includes all forms of false, inaccurate, or misleading information designed, presented and promoted to intentionally cause public harm or for profit. It does not cover issues arising from the creation and dissemination online of illegal content (notably defamation, hate speech, incitement to violence), which are subject to regulatory remedies under EU or national laws. Nor does it cover other forms of deliberate but not misleading distortions of facts such a satire and parody. Problems of disinformation are deeply intertwined with the development of digital media. They are driven by actors — state or non-state political actors, for-profit actors, media, citizens, individually or in groups — and by manipulative uses of communication infrastructures that have been harnessed to produce, circulate and amplify disinformation on a larger scale than previously, often in new ways that are still poorly mapped and understood.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
van Dijck, J., Poell, T., & de Waal, M. (2018) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780190889760.001.0001 · Cited by 2,951
Citizens Versus the Internet: Confronting Digital Challenges With Cognitive Tools
Kozyreva, A., Lewandowsky, S., & Hertwig, R. (2020) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1177/1529100620946707 · Cited by 479
False equivalencies: Online activism from left to right
Freelon, D., Marwick, A., & Kreiss, D. (2020) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.abb2428 · Cited by 281
Digital disinformation and emotions: exploring the social risks of affective polarization
Serrano-Puche, J. (2021) · International Review of Sociology · doi:10.1080/03906701.2021.1947953 · Cited by 69
The Future of Dataveillance in Advertising Theory and Practice
Strycharz, J., & Segijn, C. M. (2022) · Journal of Advertising · doi:10.1080/00913367.2022.2109781 · Cited by 63
Metadata
- Authors
- Buning, M.
- Venue
- Cadmus - EUI Research Repository (European University Institute)
- Publisher
- European University Institute
- Published
- 2018-01-01
- OpenAlex
- W2982867001
- Cited by
- 300
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 42.61
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A multi-dimensional approach to disinformation : Report of the independent High level Group on fake news and online disinformation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2759/739290
- The paper
- Buning, M. (2018). A multi-dimensional approach to disinformation : Report of the independent High level Group on fake news and online disinformation. Cadmus - EUI Research Repository (European University Institute). https://doi.org/10.2759/739290
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.