The article is misleading. That's either unintentional or intentional. Per Hanlon's razor, my first hypothesis is the former but we shouldn't rule out the lat

The article is misleading. That's either unintentional or intentional. Per Hanlon's razor, my first hypothesis is the former but we shouldn't rule out the latter. Proactively question good faith but don't proactively doubt it. Calling out the article as misleading mitigates the damage it causes and thus exactly "contributes to understanding the topic."