[tines]

You're using a different definition than the article. It's developed a negative connotation, but originally it referred to any dissemination of information made to influence public opinion. It refers to the motivation, not the content. Even citing true, non-misleading statistics in order to accomplish something good for society is propaganda, according to the old meaning. ("Propaganda" comes from a word that literally just means "propagate".)

[jturpin]

I don't know why people are saying the article uses a morally neutral definition of propaganda. It starts with saying "Propaganda is information (delivered through any medium) designed to persuade, manipulate emotion, and change opinion rather than to inform using logical truths and facts. The aim of propaganda is to change minds via the use of emotion, misinformation, disinformation, truths, half-truths, and cleverly selected facts; not to enlighten (although one can technically propagandize true information, using emotion to sell truth, this generally isn’t what we are talking about when we use the term “propaganda”)".

The article's core purpose is to describe manipulative and insincere propaganda strategies so that the reader learns defenses against these strategies. This is very much in line with the negative definition of propaganda, and not just the very general "propagate information" definition.

[BitwiseFool]

How do we classify messaging campaigns the government puts out that aren't particularly manipulative or harmful? For instance, are posters telling people to wear mosquito repellent and to drain pools of standing water be considered propaganda? My understanding is that they would. But it fails the manipulative test. I don't know if we have a good word in the vernacular for the kinds of messaging I'm talking about. Public Service Announcement?