Your definition of misinformation runs counter to almost every source I can find.
If you have a published work that makes it more clear maybe that would help, but it seems wrong that “widely known” is the litmus test, especially when, by definition, the status of those people was not widely known at the time.
It seems like your definition of “misinformation” is very susceptible to the “appeal to authority” fallacy and therefore makes it a not very useful word (i.e. does one Russian general saying something incorrect make the information not misinformation?)
EDIT: sorry to hammer the edit feature, but to that end, if more than 50% of humans believe that God punishes those who sin, does saying “God did x to punish y group” then not equate to misinformation?
If you have a published work that makes it more clear maybe that would help, but it seems wrong that “widely known” is the litmus test, especially when, by definition, the status of those people was not widely known at the time.
It seems like your definition of “misinformation” is very susceptible to the “appeal to authority” fallacy and therefore makes it a not very useful word (i.e. does one Russian general saying something incorrect make the information not misinformation?)
EDIT: sorry to hammer the edit feature, but to that end, if more than 50% of humans believe that God punishes those who sin, does saying “God did x to punish y group” then not equate to misinformation?