Jump to content

Talk:Twitter Files/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

Selective examples, and poor citations degrade Wikipedia

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. This article lacks due diligence and citation and doesn't stand to meet even basic academic standards because it gives preference to secondary and tertiary sources.

Example from the article: ...in the interest of transparency, Dorsey called for all of the Twitter Files to be released, tweeting to Musk, "Make everything public now."

Aside from the gratuitous opinionizing, (Dorsey calls to release "discussions around current and future actions," not emails relevant to Taibbi.) we must assume that the author didn't read the primary source. We must assume that because the author didn't cite the primary source, even though it was readily and easily available from the secondary source that they did cite!

Deliberately citing secondary and tertiary sources is not acceptable for an encyclopedia. 69.169.184.185 (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Lol, that's not how this works at all. WP:SECONDARY sourcing is preferable to WP:TERTIARY and WP:PRIMARYSOURCES. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:47, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Close one. I was afraid we’d have to rely on Mein Kampf and the 1939 Reichstag speech for our Hitler article. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:44, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
This is a plainly offensive response. Additionally, you've made an overzealous statement that shows you've misunderstood the issue. If you, as an author on Wikipedia, make a claim that in Mein Kampf, Hitler wrote "It is always more difficult to fight against faith than to fight against knowledge," then you should indeed cite Mein Kampf. If, on the other hand, you are writing an analysis of Mein Kampf, then you should cite secondary sources. Here is the relevant text:
"3. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge"
That Hitler wrote that in Mein Kampf is a statement of fact. That Dorsey wrote "Make everything public now." is a statement of fact.
Forbes analysis on that statement is not at claim. 69.169.184.185 (talk) 23:23, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Um, ok, but, why are we quoting Hitler and looking for a citation to a Hitler quote? This is circular logic. The goal of a Wikipedia article is to explain and educate. We're not an exhaustive dumping ground for other material whether it belongs in Wikiquote or Wikibooks or nowhere but someone's own publication. The Twitter Files do not need to be quoted at all and they shouldn't be. The goal is to SUMMARIZE THEIR SIGNIFICANCE. That means in reliable sources and if reliable sources gloss over some parts, so we will as well. Andre🚐 23:41, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
I think you're confused. This thread is about Wikipedia authors misrepresenting a statement made by Dorsey outside of the Twitter Files and choosing to cite a Forbes opinion piece instead of Dorsey. This NOT about an analysis of the Twitter Files, nor is it a call to cite them. You appear to be confusing this thread with another thread on this page. 69.169.184.185 (talk) 00:02, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Also, I didn't bring Hitler into the discussion. I'm replying to someone who did, and showing that their point was not made well by using the example they gave. How is that circular logic? That you didn't follow it doesn't make it circular. It simply means you misunderstood. 69.169.184.185 (talk) 00:06, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
This is not an analysis. It's a quotation. Stating that someone made an analysis obviously deserves a citation pointing to that analysis. But stating that Dorsey posted on Twitter and then citing Forbes' analysis when the author didn't make one to begin with is out of place. Either state that Forbes made an analysis where they quoted Dorsey as posting something on Twitter, or leave it as is, stating that Dorsey said something, and then cite Dorsey. Would you care to explain why Forbes opinion was used over a citation of fact? Because that's what I'm accusing Wikipedia authors of doing here. Is Wikipedia policy to write opinion pieces or to provide readers with facts?
Additionally, "lol" seems inappropriate in your response. Was your intention to ridicule? 69.169.184.185 (talk) 23:14, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Response to authors preference for secondary sources

Authors stated that Wikipedia prefers secondary sources then joked cynically about citing Mein Kampf for the Hitler article. 1. Please be respectful. 2. If you make a direct claim that Hitler said something in Mein Kampf you should absolutely cite Mein Kampf, not a synopsis of Mein Kampf from your sister's high school book report. Unless that is, you tell the reader that your sister wrote a book report and in it she claims that Hitler said something. 3. In this article, repeatedly, authors make quotation based on secondary sources and misrepresent the meaning and context of the quote. Because of the frequency in which this occurs, it appears to be done in bad faith. Whether that's the case or not, that is the appearance. See all the other comments on this article (secondary sources would be okay here since the claim is rebuffed by those sources, see how that works?). 4. The purpose of using secondary over primary sources is to remain objective, not to inject the author's opinion through creative selection of misquoted and out of context articles. Again, if you say someone said something on Twitter, then cite Twitter, otherwise state clearly that someone else said they saw someone say something on Twitter and use that secondary source, in good faith, without misleading the reader to believe that it's a direct quote.

Hope that helps. 69.169.184.185 (talk) 13:59, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:RSPRIMARYHere's the relevant guideline for reference Amthisguy (talk) 17:03, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Per WP:PRIMARY:
"1. Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them"
There is much reason to believe that the installments are not reputably published. All of the journalists/authors Musk has brought in to report on the internal documents all are some sort of contrarian/anti-establishment if not right-wing slant. Because of this ideological imbalance, it seems clear to me this isn't meant to be an impartial look at Twitter's inner workings, but rather a sensationalized display in order paint some ugly picture of a lefty anti-free speech dictatorship. Moreover, per WP:RSPTWITTER, since everything on there is user-generated, they are considered self-published sources, which are equally if not more questionable to use. Although self-published sources could be considered reliable if "produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications", and it is true that Taibii and Weiss used to be journalists for MSM publications, I do not think they meet the criteria.
"3. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge"
To say that the Twitter Files' installments are "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts" is laughable at best. Since we don't have direct access to the documents themselves, we cannot verify whether or not they are being presented honestly. Due to this, it would not be in bad faith for us editors to assume that the installments are dishonest, either deliberately or negligently, and therefore use secondary sources that describe and qualify and/or refute the statements pushed by them.
"5. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them."
This guideline is a big doozy, and is one of the other reasons why we aren't citing Twitter directly. If we are just restating what the installments are saying uncritically without secondary sources to interpret it, we are doing a disservice to our readers by removing the impartiality that makes Wikipedia what it is.
Therefore, using primary/self-published sources such as Twitter is wholly unwise here. I hope that clears things up.
— SomeNeatGiraffes (talk) 19:06, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
You seem to be defending something that isn't in question. It's okay if you don't want to cite the Twitter files directly. That's not relevant whatsoever. The example I gave was citing Forbes to back the claim that Musk said something on Twitter. What he said is irrelevant. Whether he lied or didn't lie is irrelevant. The authors opinion on it is irrelevant except if documenting that someone had an opinion, in which case, state that such opinion exists as a matter of fact, and cite that. Whether he posted on Twitter, or didn't post on Twitter is the claim in question, since the author is stating that he did, and that's why we need a citation. As evidence that Musk did in fact post on Twitter, the post itself is the relevant citation. Can you please explain why the reader of an encyclopedia should also be given Forbes editors' opinions on the post as the preferred citation? 69.169.184.185 (talk) 22:41, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Are we going to add an external link for every release? Seems a bit WP:UNDUE to me, but I dont have a strong opinion as of yet. We do have polices about excessive external links. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:05, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

With the other thread above about External links in mind, I'm beginning to think a table would work nicely. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:04, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
They all have names, authors and dates.
Twitter Files Part 1: December 2, 2022, by Matt Taibbi
TWITTER AND THE HUNTER BIDEN LAPTOP STORY
1a. Twitter Files Supplemental, December 6, 2022, by Matt Taibbi
THE “EXITING” OF TWITTER DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL JIM BAKER
Twitter Files Part 2, by Bari Weiss, December 8, 2022
TWITTER’S SECRET BLACKLISTS
Twitter Files, Part 3, by Matt Taibbi December 9, 2022
THE REMOVAL OF DONALD TRUMP, October 2020 - January 6th, 2021
Twitter Files Part 4, by Michael Shellenburger December 10, 2022
THE REMOVAL OF DONALD TRUMP, January 7th, 2021
Twitter Files Part 5, by Bari Weiss, December 11, 2022
THE REMOVAL OF DONALD TRUMP, January 8th, 2021
Twitter Files Part 6, by Matt Taibbi, December 16, 2022
TWITTER, THE FBI SUBSIDIARY
Twitter Files Part 7, by Michael Shellenburger , December 19, 2022
THE FBI AND HUNTER BIDEN’S LAPTOP
Twitter Files Part 8, by Lee Fang, December 20, 2022
HOW TWITTER QUIETLY AIDED THE PENTAGON’S COVERT ONLINE PSYOP CAMPAIGN
Twitter Files Part 9, by Matt Taibbi, December 24th, 2022
TWITTER AND “OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCIES”
Twitter Files Part 10, by David Zweig, December 28, 2022
HOW TWITTER RIGGED THE COVID DEBATE
Twitter Files Part 11 by Matt Taibbi, January 3, 2023
HOW TWITTER LET THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY IN
Twitter Files Part 12 by Matt Taibbi, January 3, 2023
TWITTER AND THE FBI “BELLY BUTTON” Kmccook (talk) 02:20, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes, they do NOW. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:12, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I have now tried a table to replace the EL mess. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:01, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Oy vey, does it have to go up there, how about at the end? Andre🚐 04:08, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
No, not necessarily. It just seemed like a logical spot, as a TOC is normally at the top. I am not bound to the location, but hope my work is not wasted. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:19, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
If you don't mind could we put it at the end. Usually external linking isn't so prominently placed. It's going to drive people to leave the article and go to Twitter. It belongs near the references and external links IMO if we're going to link to them directly at all, which I guess is fine. Andre🚐 04:21, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm confused by User:Kmccook's revert [1] - I did indeed move them down, but you reverted it because, I guess, you didn't see it? It's there though? Andre🚐 04:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
They weren't showing up at all for me. Maybe I looked too quickly. I like the Table. It gives context to the article. Wherever you think it should go. Kmccook (talk) 04:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
I have restored them to the lower position. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:36, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Per Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided #2, #10, I'm a bit uncomfortable with this prominent placement of Twitter links to dubious reliable journalistic material. I guess you could make the argument that they are the "official links" of the Twitter files, but I would argue that exception should allow for 1 link and not a table. We don't do this for any other primary source I can think of. It'd be like if I started making a big table of links to the official congressional vote tracking sites and publications of congressional bills from the government printing office as the "table of contents" of every article about a law or a politician. Andre🚐 04:34, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
    • I understand your concern. Right now I have not changed what we've been doing. We have been linking to them. I just changed it to a more pleasant and easily manipulated format. This is a policy discussion that should occur on the MOS pages. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:39, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
      • I'm not objecting to the table format, just moving the external links to the 2nd section and labelling it "Table of Contents." The combination of the name and the position seem destined to drive people to those links instead of having it be an appendix or addendum to the article. Andre🚐 04:41, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Why not make it it’s own tab with a chart template and it can have a date when it was posted, who posted it, the file name and maybe other sections per file Bobisland (talk) 05:32, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by own tab. Andre🚐 23:16, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

The new Table of Contents/External Links looks great. Easier to read. Thanks to all contributors :) For future updates to this Table of Contents, this capsule summaries (archived) might be useful for discussions on this Talk page. This substack was recently published by Matt Taibbi. Who as you know is one of the main journalists. His summary includes all journalists involved. Again, I'm not suggesting this Substack as a source for the Article. But as a resource to facilitate debate on this Talk page. Francewhoa (talk) 16:00, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I meant the new table of contents which was just added by another person Bobisland (talk) 02:30, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I think it should be placed over the reactions tab seems illogical to have what is being reacted to below the reactions tab chronological wise Bobisland (talk) 02:33, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. These are external links so they should go at the bottom. Andre🚐 02:35, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
They are external links so they belong at bottom. They are an additional resource for readers, nothing more. Slywriter (talk) 02:39, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Now moved. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:54, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
I like the cleaned up manner in a table. Wondering outloud if they should be located in each relevant section Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:17 (UTC))
I don't think that is allowable. Use as an inline citation is out, and use as an EL is only slightly less out, per WP:ELNO. We are already pushing the envelope with this table, but we seem to have a local consensus to bend the rules a little bit. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:59, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Why not add the table of contents in its own tab without external links and then place the external links at the bottom as mixing the table of contents with the external links creates a poor chronological order as what’s being reacted to is placed below the reactions tab, the external links can be titled related to which file it is Bobisland (talk) 10:55, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Because we are not trying to arrange them chronologically as has been explained. The external links go at the bottom. Andre🚐 17:49, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
  • The sources were removed by Aquillion saying maybe we should do an RFC. I am a bit on the fence about the content myself and think the links should be included in the section prose, rather than a table. But it seems other editors prefer the content is excluded entirely. Let's see what an RFC says, in case someone raises one. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:11, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
    The links cannot be included in the prose, that would be a clear violation of policy. The external links may be as well. But certainly including such external links that are expressly not usable as references should be an obvious no-go. Andre🚐 03:16, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Avatar of Elon Musk
Avatar of Elon Musk
Elon Musk
@elonmusk
 Twitter logo, a stylized blue bird
April 14, 2022[1]
There are these tweet formats (maybe called infoboxes or templates?) located on Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk, for example at Acquisition_of_Twitter_by_Elon_Musk#Takeover_bid "i made an offer". They work on that article, so why not here in each relevant section?

I'll add one here as an example... feel free to delete it if it is prohibited to add this type of content here on this talk page? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:15, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Fine to have it on the talk page but I do not think this should be used for the article. There's a difference between a direct quote from Elon Musk WP:ABOUTSELF and material from others on Twitter about 3rd parties and potential BLP. Andre🚐 19:39, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Using any Primary source is a dicey proposition when the issue is controversial. The Twitter files are WP:PRIMARYNEWS, so even if we accept them as reliable, reputable and uncontroversial there is still no policy to allow wholesale inclusion in a Wikipedia article. While I think they are important and currently overlooked by the media, Wikipedia policies are not going to change overnight to suddenly make an exception for covering this one series of Primary documents differently than every primary document that has come before it. Right now, the best case would be a reliable enough source collates all the Twitter files and we can have a single link in External Links. The differing importance of each "file" makes it hard to justify an ever-increasing list of external links, some of which add BLP concerns. Slywriter (talk) 04:48, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
There is a website that is archiving all the twitter files would this be suitable: https://www.twitterfiles.co/ 82.29.131.237 (talk) 19:28, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

No Twitter, Substack, or other unreliable sources. Just the reliable news sources which report on each one. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:04, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Part Table of Contents Presenter Date
1 The Twitter Files Matt Taibbi December 2, 2022
1a Twitter Files Supplemental Matt Taibbi December 6, 2022
2 Twitter's Secret Blacklists Bari Weiss December 8, 2022
3 The Removal of Donald Trump Matt Taibbi December 9, 2022
4 The Removal of Donald Trump, January 7 Michael Shellenberger December 10, 2022
5 The Removal of Trump from Twitter Bari Weiss December 12, 2022
6 Twitter, the FBI Subsidiary Matt Taibbi December 16, 2022
6a Supplemental Matt Taibbi December 18, 2022
7 The FBI & the Hunter Biden Laptop Michael Shellenberger December 19, 2022
8 How Twitter Quietly Aided the Pentagon's Covert Online PsyOp Campaign Lee Fang December 20, 2022
9 Twitter and "Other Government Agencies" Matt Taibbi December 24, 2022
9a Note Matt Taibbi December 24, 2022
10 How Twitter Rigged the COVID Debate David Zweig December 26, 2022
11 How Twitter Let the Intelligence Community In Matt Taibbi January 3, 2023
12 Twitter and the FBI "Belly Button" Matt Taibbi January 3, 2023
13 About Scott Gotlieb and Pfizer Alex Berenson January 9, 2023

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:04, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

The RS write about them, but do not provide citations to the sources. Kmccook (talk) 00:31, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
So, what's your point, in terms of Wikipedia guidelines and policies? O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:58, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
My point is that this obviates the suggestion. I Kmccook (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
How are these RS? O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:01, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
I understand what you are doing, and I cannot be heard. I will leave now. Kmccook (talk) 01:06, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
I am asking for the rationale according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It has absolutely nothing to do with you being a female. Please stop this. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:15, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Actually I support inclusion of this table as sourced. Could add a source to mention each release. I dont think this table is controversial and thus WP:PRIMARY is sufficient. Note I opposed this content up above, but now flipped and support it. I think it is encyclopedic. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Berenson's latest is annoying me. Personal axe to grind now being given same credit as the other files. If the files continue in that vein, the primary source argument loses weight. Slywriter (talk) 02:27, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
    I mean, look, it's controversial, no doubt about that. The question is whether we can link directly to this material to make an exception to the normal policy in the interest of informing readers and not "censoring" this information (we aren't, and wouldn't be even if we didn't link to it directly, but I'm giving the benefit of the doubt to our critics). So, I applaud Valjean's exercise of replacing this with a source list of pure RS, though I'm not sure if that will produce a meaningful result, because I'm not sure RS actually did cover each and every one of these. There are some "revelations" in the Twitter files, and to the extent there are, it is useful to understand how RS covered the material, but they may not cover the individual "files" as organized by their presentation. We cannot use the Twitter Files material as a direct source for facts for the article, because it's attributed-opinion and/or factually unreliable on the face of it. We should be covering this at an extreme distance, the WP:10YEARSTEST view and minding WP:NOTNEWS WP:RECENTISM. Andre🚐 02:44, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
  • I support keeping the table as-is, with Twitter/Substack links. What we are disputing is not reliable sourcing, but dueness. Per WP:RSCONTEXT, the reliability of a source depends on what it is being used to support. Here, technically, we are only using the link to support the fact that the Twitter thread or Substack article exists. In that context, the links are perfectly reliable. They are also perfectly acceptable under WP:SELFSOURCE, since a link testifying to its own existence meets all five criteria.
But is it due? I think so. The way the files were published was highly unconventional, and has itself become newsworthy. There's no undue emphasis, since they're "buried" beneath all the citations to WP:RS; I have faith in our readers that they won't be led astray by a few Twitter threads, after they just read our article contextualizing them. The table is also a convenient reference to readers (including journalists and researchers), for links which may be otherwise hard to find. In fact, I'd argue the links fall under WP:ELOFFICIAL, which is normally exempt from WP:ELNO! So it isn't like we're committing a major policy violation here. Actually, the opposite is true: your proposal would violate WP:ELNO criteria 1, I'm sorry to say! DFlhb (talk) 03:32, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
As for me I am still confused on that we have 6 sections in Twitter_Files#Topics, but we have 13 items here Twitter_Files#External_links. I expressed above that I tought it would be cleaner if the external links could be added to the sub-sections or to the prose to add context. There didnt seem to be much support for my suggestion. If people dont support that, maybe it would be useful if we could categorize this EL list so it corresponds to the subjections in the Topics (could even add links). Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:46, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Because, we do not lift the sections from the material, and it would be against policy to link the external links inline in sections. Andre🚐 17:50, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
  • I am fine with having a table of the threads, with links to the threads. It is true that, under almost all circumstances, inclding a table of links to Twitter threads in a Wikipedia article would be asininely foppish indulgence (whether they were from journalists or not). However, in this circumstance, we are dealing with an article whose primary subject is a series of Twitter threads. It seems pretty clear to me that links to the threads are within scope for this. Precedent would seem obvious: Pentagon Papers, for example, contains a direct citation to the New York Times article in which the papers were first disclosed (which is itself part of the story). So does Unabomber Manifesto, which contains an external link to the Washington Post's publication of the manifesto: it's not an endorsement. Mentioning something is not the same as vouching for its accuracy or the person who said it (this isn't Twitter, after all). jp×g 07:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia as a source

I agree that this is a justifiable instance. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:15, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

  • I do not think the ABOUTSELF argument works for citing Wikipedia ON Wikipedia: we should never cite Wikipedia on Wikipedia because it's a violation of guidelines. In the past whenever it has come up, it has been roundly rejected to use ref tags to link to Wikipedia internal pages or articles from mainspace due to the ensuing confusion. However, I guess this might be a situation where it does make sense to link to a permalink, since it's an article text nugget about Wikipedia. But, if you are going to link to it, you MUST in my HUMBLE opinion, use an oldid diff link that corresponds to a meaningfully significant date. Otherwise you are linking to a live wiki page but in general the rule is not to link to project space from main space except in cleanup templates. It would also, for the purposes of this article, be in my opinion adding insult to injury. Andre🚐 02:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
  • See also WP:SUBJECT which is exempt from WP:CIRCsection2, since this is navel-gazing, or the high-on-your-own-supply, poisoned dogfood if you will. Andre🚐 03:00, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
  • This is my fault, since I was the one who added the link to the AfD as a citation. While I maintain that this is permitted by policies and guidelines, I do not have a particularly strong opinion one way or the other. I would prefer it stay, but if people want to take it out, they can take it out. jp×g 07:16, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Warning?

Twitter spent millions removing dangerous misinformation and propaganda, often posted by bots. We now have a section that is an assembly of titles and links to non-neutral, at times fringe views without even stating that they are highly controversial opinions created at the bidding of one man. If we are to do this, should we include an introduction/warning stating that we have chosen to step outside of our key policy of verifiability by providing info which is often false, misleading, dangerous, and/or conspiratorial in nature. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:08, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

No, not needed, as explained above. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:03, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Explained where? O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:00, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
I'd support the addition of a simple warning box reading, "The following are external links to Twitter and are not reliable sources for this Wikipedia article." Andre🚐 20:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Would something like this work?
— SomeNeatGiraffes (talk) 21:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm into it. Andre🚐 21:14, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Me too. A disclaimer is necessary. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:32, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Looks good. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:53, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
I added the warning and centered the table so it would line up with the message, while also formatting the text so it better resembled official warning templates. — SomeNeatGiraffes (talk) 22:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
I removed it. I think we need a much wider consensus than a handful of editors when others dispute inclusion. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:07, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
One against four, and you wouldn't even respond to my question or present any argument? O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:11, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Several editors explained why something like this is not a good idea here - Talk:Twitter Files#Statement from Wikipedia's editors as an FAQ. Maybe an RFC is needed. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
A warning box and an FAQ or a large document are hardly the same thing, but removing the table altogether certainly makes that moot. Andre🚐 03:24, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
@Objective3000: I do not think that comments like this contribute a lot to the discussion; if you have a dispute with Ernie, aren't there better places to pursue it than right here? jp×g 07:56, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
There was nothing wrong with that comment. A unilateral action taken against consensus without discussion is not what we do here. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:28, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Well, there's certainly some discussion now, I suppose. jp×g 12:14, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Absolutely not, per WP:NODISCLAIMERS (From time to time, editors insert additional disclaimers into an article either as text or as a template... While ideas like this have been continually proposed, the consensus is that they should not be used. Additional disclaimers in encyclopedia articles should generally be removed, and disclaimer templates should be removed and deleted.) and WP:CONLEVEL (Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale).
There is literally a community consensus to remove content disclaimers in articles whenever they appear; how one plans to use a small talk page discussion to go beyond that is beyond reason. If we're going to start doing this, then there needs to be a central policy RfC, not a discussion here to set aside community consensus. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:37, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
I apologize; Had I been aware of this guideline at the time I would not have proposed and implemented a disclaimer into the article. I since then have learned why it is not permitted. — SomeNeatGiraffes (talk) 22:43, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Can you link to this consensus? Is it a community consensus or a central policy? O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:54, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
I have never heard of this consensus, and an admin appears to disagree with avoiding disclaimers.[2] Disclaimers have enormous value. Without them, better off not linking to utter nonsense -- my preferred solution anyhow. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:21, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Red-tailed hawk should read this guideline more closely... For the purpose of this guideline, disclaimers are templates or text inserted into an article that duplicate the information at one of the five standard disclaimer pages: ... This content guideline represents a solid and longstanding consensus on the English Wikipedia. It has not been elevated to the status of policy, because of the few possible exceptions listed above, and a certain room for disagreement about precisely how far these exceptions should be taken. Such a disclaimer as the one proposed above could fall into or adjacent to the acceptable exception for Wikipedia:Current event templates until such time as secondary sources cover the Twitter Files adequately, then we can delete the links altogether. Andre🚐 01:29, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
I would encourage editors to read Masem's multiple comments in the NPOVN thread and not just take a single diff as a summary of his position. Slywriter (talk) 01:38, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Fine by me. I just don't see any official policy that we delete advisories on sight. And you mischaracterized my link as a summary of anyone's opinion. I would NEVER do such. Anyone can see the entire context via my link. Don't you see the difference in what is attempted here? Here, links to Twitter threads were published by an encyclopedia with no context. We are not allowed to see the context. Reliable sources are not allowed to see the context. They have asked and been denied. If we are to do what reliable sources have rightly refused to do, let us at the least inform the readers to use a ton of salt. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:43, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
  • These are the primary sources the whole article is about; the warning is absurd. The article already discusses those sources and their accuracy and includes criticism of them. There are plenty of articles which include external links to primary sources which we wouldn't call reliable or which reliable sources have criticised, and none of them have ridiculous disclaimers warning people that they are about to be linked to a tweet. Endwise (talk) 00:58, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFF without even mentioning another article. And, you have not explained why the disclaimer is "ridiculous". On top of which, articles keep being added with no discussion with link titles that are false. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:09, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
The warning is prima facie ridiculous. We don’t put a warning on the external link to Mein Kampf, or Bible verses, or any other primary source. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:25, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
If this was only about Twitter, we could cite ABOUTSELF as justification, but this is mostly about the commentary at Twitter, so we can't link to those tweets as sources in the article. They are totally forbidden for this purpose. Be happy we are making a local exception to ELNO by providing links to them in the table. Without it you won't see any links here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:32, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
You’re always so keen to cite BRD except when breaking it suits you. The onus to include contested text is on those who want to include it. So you need to gain consensus. Please self revert and do that. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:59, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
There is no such line in ELNO which we would need to make an exception to, as external links have no need to be reliable sources. WP:ELYES #2 is arguably what these links are, and WP:ELMAYBE #4 explicitly allows unreliable sources as external links. Endwise (talk) 02:01, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
It is an unambiguous WP:ELNO point 2 violation, since it is both misleading and unverifiable. ELYES point 2 specifically defers to ELNO and is therefore inapplicable, and even if it were applicable it allows a single link to a site hosting a copy. Likewise, ELMAYBE #4 is for subject-matter experts discussing the topic, not for massive tables of links to unreliable primary sources. There is clearly no consensus to include the links and clearly linking so many of them, in such a massive table, violates policy against excessive linking to misleading or unverifiable research. --Aquillion (talk) 02:11, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
It is an unambiguous WP:ELNO point 2 violation, since it is both misleading and unverifiable. ELYES point 2 specifically defers to ELNO and is therefore inapplicable -- This seems like a very strange reading of WP:EL that I have not seen before. You seem to be arguing that external links to an official copy of unreliable media, e.g. Mein Kampf or The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, are never allowed to be linked, even in articles about that media. Does the rest of Wikipedia just have this wrong? Endwise (talk) 02:27, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
That is a strange comparison because both of those are historical documents that achieved notoriety while the Twitter so-called Files are actually just a bunch of self-published tweets with opinions and views. Andre🚐 03:20, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
If it would help, I could change it from a warning template to a notice template it's less in-your-face:
— SomeNeatGiraffes (talk) 02:00, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
  • One editor has stated that we need an RfC before this "unprecedented" disclaimer be added, and removed it. If they insist on this, I suggest that the entire unprecedented table be removed until such an RfC is resolved. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
    If there is to be an RfC, a multi-question one would possibly be the ideal, each with two options (yes/no). The first question asking if links to each instalment of the files should be included in the external links section in some form. The second question, determinant on the first (ie if yes), asking if the warning text that was just removed should be included before the links to the instalments. That way you're resolving both problems at the same time. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:51, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Until then, either the disclaimer to this highly unusual table should be added back, or the table should be removed. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:58, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Why? What's strange about linking to the work in question the article is about? Endwise (talk) 02:04, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Aside from how Twitter is specifically discouraged to be used in this way by policy, you mean? Andre🚐 03:21, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
I've notified WP:ELN and WP:NPOVN, which I think may provide better discussion than a yes/no RfC would at this point. Endwise (talk) 02:07, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
I read through the responses to both noticeboards and they both argue that a warning box is unnecessary. Mayhaps I should have waited for a larger consensus before I made my edit. — SomeNeatGiraffes (talk) 15:26, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
  • I dislike that table, and had not realized how many "episodes" or whatever they are up to. Are we planning on adding each one no matter how many they release? This could become an issue of too many links, if it isn't already. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:01, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
  • We shouldn't be linking them at all; they're a clear WP:ELNO point 2 violation, as both inaccurate and unverifiable research. In fact, external links to Twitter in general are subject to ELNO point 2 restrictions, not just for this specific topic. The warning doesn't resolve this - I would oppose more than a single direct external link for this under any circumstances. A limited amount of such links are allowed in a viewpoint the article is discussing, but this massive table goes far beyond what policy can allow. --Aquillion (talk) 02:04, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
    These links are the primary sources the article itself is discussing, I don't think that's what ELNO #2 is talking about. It's the same as the external links we provide to the primary source document in question at e.g. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Endwise (talk) 02:11, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
    That's one famous doc. Not cherry-picked internal discussions released for political reasons. Which brings to mind that there are BLP issues here. O3000, Ret. (talk) 02:14, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
    This whole article is about those "cherry-picked internal discussions released for political reasons", just as that article is about that famous doc. Endwise (talk) 02:23, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
    And the latter documents led to historical world events in depth and are studied by academics and schools for decades. That is not the case here. In fact they are still publishing new "files" which are basically just "twitter threads" from new people. So you're saying anytime anything gets retweeted by Elon Musk calling it a file we need to link it here forever? Andre🚐 03:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
    @Andrevan Wow, thank you for pointing out the obvious and enlightening comparison between historical world events and a random person's tweets. I'm sure future generations will be just as interested in reading Elon Musk's twitter threads as they are in studying the Declaration of Independence. My mind is officially blown. Man-at-Bogomil (talk) 05:21, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
    I guess you are being sarcastic but it is making my point. Why does anyone just get to publish something on Twitter and have it now be a source that needs to be linked directly here? Andre🚐 05:29, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Again, you're arguing that ELYES #2 trumps ELNO, when the wording of ELYES #2 specifically says otherwise. More importantly, just like ELNO #2 allows "limited" linking, the wording of ELYES clearly allows a single link, not a massive table of links to everything that has ever been published under the subject - that is the difference between the example you cited and the massive table that was added here. Our articles about eg. unreliable websites may sometimes link to the website, but we don't use them as a compendium for every single thing that that site has ever published. Since ELNO #2 allows limited linking, I would accept a single link as a compromise, but only with a firm agreement that no more than that single link to Twitter will ever be added to the External Links section - I don't think there's any basis on policy that would allow a massive table of links to every sub-document or chapter or the like like the article had before. --Aquillion (talk) 02:16, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
  • If this was only about Twitter, we could cite ABOUTSELF as justification (which also allows unreliablesources), but this is mostly about the commentary at Twitter, so we can't link to those tweets as sources in the article. Because they are strongly BLP content ELNO does apply. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:11, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Including these links is essentially similar to quoting the tweets. When quoting, the original is the single most reliable source for verifying that our quote is accurate. So to say they are unreliable is incorrect. There may be other reasons not to include the links, but reliability is not one of them. Blueboar (talk) 14:47, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
There exist two problems with that argument. First, they are cherry-picked, out of context quotes. We don't know their real meaning in context. Secondly, this is not just quoting tweets. It is linking to commentary from biased sources, reading into the tweets, drawing conclusions, and making accusations that may not be true. That is, they are not at all reliable as sources. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:03, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
They are not unreliable in the quotability sense, they are unreliable in the factual accuracy sense: due to the fact we don't have access to the internal documents the presenters are referencing, we cannot verify whether or not they are being represented honestly. Therefore, political stance notwithstanding, we must assume factual inaccuracy with the Twitter threads. Moreover, primary sources are generally discouraged in favor of secondary sources that describe and analyze the primary sources. Also, Twitter threads are considered self-published sources, and I do not believe any of the presenters meet the criteria for being a "subject-matter expert," and since this article is under BLP restrictions, self-published sources are strongly discouraged if not banned. You could make an WP:ABOUTSELF argument, but the Files make numerous audacious exceptional claims about third-parties which could be false, which is unacceptable by Wikipedia's standards. — SomeNeatGiraffes (talk) 15:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
NYT, WaPo, etc do not give us full access to their source materials to evaluate whether they are cherry-picking for a story. So, don't find that argument persuasive. What is more persuasive is whether the endless publication has made this listing UNDUE as we are giving equal weight to a screed about personal issues with Twitter and discussions of government pressure on a social media company. Given the size, variery of quality and impact I'd say that we need to lean towards reliable sources establishing which files are important and not continue with our good faith effort to give a reader maximum information. Slywriter (talk) 16:30, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Sly, isn't RS such as NYT, WaPo, ... cherry-picking for a story. just another way of saying reliable sources establishing which files are important? SPECIFICO talk 16:58, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes and no. A scholar shows their work, others can re-create from their sources. A reporter prints and we trust based on what masthead they publish under that they are not withholding relvant information. I think it is flawed logic we use to include newspapers articles, generally ignoring WP:BREAKING and WP:PRIMARYNEWS which identify many news reports especially early reports, interviews and investigative reports as sources that need replacing or are actually primary sources by policy and should be used with greater care than they currently are. Slywriter (talk) 17:19, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
I see your point, but unlike Twitter, publications such as the New York Times and the Washington Post are considered generally reliable for sources of fact, and they have editorial oversight to check if what they are writing is accurate, so I would trust their word more over a Twitter thread by a contrarian climate change activist. The primary reports and the papers' reports are admittedly both based on the potentially cherrypicked documents since we do not have access to the documents the presenters have access to, but the latter views it through a more critical lens. To comment on your above reply, I do think it is a good idea to replace the breaking news reports with more analytical sources written after the installments have gelled when they inevitably emerge.
Even so, to further respond to Blueboar's original reply, I do think that the Files should be linked to in some form, but it does not have to be linking each publication when it comes out. @Amthisguy linked to Taibbi's Substack page in the article's infobox, which could be a step in the right direction. — SomeNeatGiraffes (talk) 17:45, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I just removed an External link to Taibbi's substack "Capsule summaries" as a clear vilation of ELNO. Now it's only in the infobox. Is this still acceptable? Should we have an RfC on this? It really does seem to violate multiple policies. These "Capsule summaries" are even worse than each report. They are Taibbi's own exhibition of his fringe agenda, and he's really gone off the deep end now. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:29, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

There’s no violation of ELNO, and if it takes an RFC to confirm it then so be it. Start it up. Mr Ernie (talk) 03:24, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
If Matt Taibbi were attempting to write a Wikipedia article, these policies would apply to him, but he is not, so I do not understand the relevance of this. The summaries do not seem strictly necessary to link to, but I don't think this depends on what Matt Taibbi's opinions are. jp×g 07:56, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

The proposal being made here seems to be that we establish a site-wide policy of including large disclaimers before external links whose contents do not follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines. This is far beyond the scope of what can (or should) be established as consensus on single talk page, whether or not it "looks like" we are "carrying water". jp×g 07:56, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I second the statement of JPxG and note that any discussion on this talk page cannot approve such proposal. If you want to really push for disclaimers on all the wikipedia articles based on your own POV (or others POV), then try a larger wikipedia-wide noticeboard. We will not create a policy just for this article, because an editor a group of editors dont like it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:27, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Should the photo caption call Matt Taibbi a "journalist"?

This is yet another reason why this article should not keep referring to Taibbi as a "journalist" when -- at least in this matter -- he is acting as a proxy for Musk, in Musk's ham-fisted attempt to promote his personal agenda while cloaking himself in third parties publications. SPECIFICO talk 03:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
This article should refer to Taibbi as a journalist, as the vast majority of sources refer to him as a journalist—even sources like Slate that are somewhat critical of the handling of this whole thing. The New York Times refers to him as an "independent journalist", Mother Jones refers to him as an "independent journalist", CNN refers to him as being a journalist, Axios refers to him as being a journalist, et cetera. One's personal dislike or distaste for Taibbi's work's ethics or quality should not affect how we characterize his profession in the article. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:33, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
To be clear, the edit that I believe is excessive is here, where we repeat "journalist" as an epithet in his photo caption. We link to his page in the lead, so the full body of description about Taibbi is presented there. I have no personal opinion about him - never met him as I presume is the case for you as well. SPECIFICO talk 19:39, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
This isn't about how one views Taibbi as a person, but moreso that we shouldn't be deleting the term "journalist" from people who are widely described as journalists even when we personally don't see their work as high-quality or see the work as not ethical. I am not saying that you dislike Taibbi as a person, but your comment that this article should not keep referring to Taibbi as a "journalist" when -- at least in this matter -- he is acting as a proxy for Musk, in Musk's ham-fisted attempt to promote his personal agenda while cloaking himself in third parties publications does seem to be an expression that we should not label him a journalist because you believe his reporting here lacks journalistic integrity (i.e. there are quality or ethics issues with his work). If there is something else you meant by that comment, please enlighten me, because I can't quite find another reasonable reading. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:46, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
I am saying that we already call him a journalist in his first appearance, and his article page gives a balanced view of his career. The RS accounts of his actions in this matter do not call this project of his "journalism." But aside from that, a caption should be a brief description of who or what is in the photo. There's no need to tag him journalist or the other gent a "writer" in the nexr section. It's poor style, which in this case also happens to have NPOV nuance to it. That's all. SPECIFICO talk 19:55, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Just looking through a sampling of WP:FAs that have images with captions, I'm seeing a bunch that note the relevant titles that people have in those captions (United States v. Wong Kim Ark lists the titles of "Associate Justice" and "Chief Justice" when describing the people pictured, for example, while Operation Ke notes military rank and what the people are commanding despite the individuals being introduced in prose), and at a fundamental level I don't think I would agree that this is poor style. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:03, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Well, Operation Ke is not a linked bio page, however. Certainly people who are addressed by a description or honorific in ordinary discourse, e.g. Justice Judith, Dr. Strangelove, would be described that way in most instances. I think in these two cases, journalist and writer frame the narratives of each of them in a way that is better stated explicitly in the text. SPECIFICO talk 21:43, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Your edit here and where you finished the edit summary here seem to be at significant odds with how RS characterize and describe Taibbi. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:48, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Reason behind removing WSJ journalist response?

@Specifico I agree that the response you removed deserves less weight than the editorial board from the same journal, but why less weight than the rest of the listed journalists? Especially when the next/last paragraphed is sourced entirely from marginally reliable sources. Amthisguy (talk) 17:35, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Just FYI the editorial board carries no weight, we treat opinion pieces as WP:SELFPUBLISHED so they don't generally carry any weight outside of pages about them (Editorial Board at The Wall Street Journal in this case) unless they're written by a subject matter expert. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:19, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
@Horse Eye's Back That is not correct.
Per WP:RSOPINION
Opinion articles are reliable sources for statements of the author's opinion, and should be attributed as such.
They are not the same as self published sources. Amthisguy (talk) 05:29, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
That is exactly what I said, self published sources are only reliable sources for statements of the author's opinion which is undue on any page which isn't about them unless they're a subject matter expert. In this context they only have weight because other sources have talked about them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:18, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
I think it's reasonable to claim that Wall Street Journal Editorial Board might be an expert source on journalism (you know, given that they run the WSJ), though yes, it's definitely an opinion piece. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:27, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
An expert on journalism would be a noted academic or authorial authority on journalism. Not an editorial board. An editorial board isn't a person so it cannot be an expert, it lacks credential, and of course it is biased and opinionated so must be attributed. Andre🚐 01:31, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
That's an absurdity. [3] O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:37, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
It seems a stretch that they're experts on journalism when their own journalists called them out as liars.[4] soibangla (talk) 02:37, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
I think you're confusing the editorial board with the editors of the paper's news side. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:39, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
@Horse Eye's Back Read the policy/guidelines again. Opinion pieces are not self published sourcea. Self published sources, fact or opinion, are only useful on the subjects own wikipedia page. Opinions from reliable sources can generally go on any page that their opinion is on, but must be attributed as the author's opinion. Not statements of fact.
Most of the responses are from opinion articles. Reason for example is a magazine that only publishes opinion, but is still reputable enough that it's still considered a high quality source even for controversial statements of fact. No one is claiming Reason is self published.
Some papers are exceptions. Some sources that are otherwise reliable have opinion columns by "contributors" in which case they are essentially self published. Amthisguy (talk) 02:13, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
That opinion writer is more erratic than expert and not a significant voice on such matters. It's a stretch to include his rather meaningless words that can easily be misconstrued out of whatever context they inhabited. SPECIFICO talk 17:23, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
@SPECIFICO not liking the opinion isn't a good reason for excluding it. The wsj is generally considered a high quality source. And there are a large number of opinions already in the article. It's not currently weighted more heavily than any of them. It naturally holds less weight in the article simply by being outnumbered. Amthisguy (talk) 02:22, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
WSJ editorials are not considered an acceptable source at all. There is a difference between editorials and news. I wouldn't include the NYT editorials either. O3000, Ret. (talk) 02:31, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
@Objective3000 editorials are opinions and should be treated like opinions Amthisguy (talk) 02:52, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Op-ed articles are opinions; and usable as opinions when they are from experts. For example, Paul Krugman is an op-ed author who has a Noble in the area in which he opines. Editorials are opinions that are not from experts. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:53, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
It's not even an opinion. It's anodyne jibberish. And I did not state any opinion about it except that it's insignificant. SPECIFICO talk 02:37, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
@SPECIFICO His argument was straight forward and in perfect english. Do you have a reason not to include his opinion that is verifiable? If the issue is the ambiguity of the quote, context can be added. Amthisguy (talk) 03:48, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Verification is not the issue. Adding more of an WP:UNDUE event is worse, not better. I'd suggest you reread our core sourcing and content issues. He is not an expert commentator and a newspaper column is generally a poor source unless from a notable expert and/or the opinion is discussed elsewhere by secondary sources. SPECIFICO talk 03:54, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Who would constitute an expert on such a claim? The way I see it, it's a claim on something that's inherently more subjective than other claims. For things like medical claims or legal claims, who constitutes an expert is obvious. But who is the expert on what political or moral opinion you should hold?
WP:NPOVT explains it well:
"On certain topics, there is naturally less "expertise" and scientific thinking, and more "opinion". This is especially the case of topics such as morals or religion, based on faith, as well as politics.
We should then list all points of view, according to their importance, and, if possible, be precise as to who holds them. There exist some cases where the vast majority of political parties, politicians and journalists hold a certain opinion, while a sizeable minority do not: both views should be stated."
Also keep in mind, removing non expert opinions would require removing most of the response section. Amthisguy (talk) 05:25, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Experts are generally those who have been published in the related academic literature. Note that the vast majority of the opinions in the response section are not sourced to the author of that opinion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:01, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
@Horse Eye's Back Not what I asked. Who's the expert on what political opinion someone thinks you should hold? Amthisguy (talk) 02:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Either a political scientist or an expert in whatever field the political opinion was about. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:20, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Do you suggest removing all responses that are not from political scientists or an expert in the specific area their response is on? Keep in mind that includes the entirety of the journalist response section. Also keep in mind that journalists are the sources for the vast majority of the article. Amthisguy (talk) 04:16, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Amthisguy. please reread our NPOV and V policies. "Importance" is not in our toolkit. SPECIFICO talk 16:36, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
@SPECIFICO The term used in wp:npov is "due weight" Amthisguy (talk) 02:25, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Deconstructing ‘The Twitter Files’

Deconstructing ‘The Twitter Files’[2]

This has got to be one of the most brutal assessments of the Twitter Files, their release, the agendas of the authors, and why mainstream media have barely mentioned them (which gives us the limited sourcing problem). The criticisms are many, on point, and worth citing here. As the author writes: "I thought it may be of interest to catalogue the claims in one place, as well as what rendered most of them unreportable, despite occasionally containing notable information." He then proceeds with a 13-part breakdown/analysis. Here are a few opening comments:

  • "The banal truth is that, if other newsrooms are anything like our own, they read each as a matter of diligence, and simply found nothing new or interesting to report, or what little there was contaminated by the dubious circumstances of their presentation."
  • "no one involved in the selection and analysis of the internal communications appears to have any familiarity with (let alone expertise in) how social media and tech platforms are moderated or run."
  • "In each Twitter Files thread, we see unfounded assumptions, insinuations and personal interpretations given equal weight as facts, more or less establishing these as opinion pieces rather than factual reporting. ..little of what is actually provided satisfies editorial standards in many a newsroom."
  • "a definite goal: to discredit the previous moderation and management teams, and advance a narrative of systematic anti-conservative activity at Twitter."

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:04, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

TechCrunch? That's a yellow source at WP:RSP. I would treat that story cautiously. Interestingly enough the article confirms the FBI was aware of the Hunter Biden laptop and had taken possession of it. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Yellow is a good thing meaning no consensus against. Like all sources, use it on a case by case basis and use attribution when in doubt. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:30, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
I agree, but please be consistent. "Since there are myriad much more reliable sources for controversial content (like this), we try to avoid Fox and use them instead. Fox News usually introduces questionable or misleading views and content. It's just plain untrustworthy for politics and medical science." -- Valjean Amthisguy (talk) 03:55, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Don't focus only on the color. There is also text there at WP:RSP, and the two sites are quite different. Fox is always on the edge of deprecation with a large portion of the community. Techcrunch just has some things to keep in mind, none of which are related to systemic dishonesty, misinformation and disinformation, propaganda, conspiracy theories, direct repetition of Russian state propaganda designed to destabilize America and confuse its citizens, or anti-science POV. Read the text there. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:08, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


References

  1. ^ Musk, Elon [@elonmusk] (April 14, 2022). "I made an offer
    [https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/0001418091/000110465922045641/tm2212748d1_sc13da.htm https://sec.gov/Archives/edgar...]"     (Tweet). Archived from the original on April 14, 2022. Retrieved May 2, 2022 – via Twitter.
  2. ^ Coldewey, Devin (January 13, 2023). "Deconstructing 'The Twitter Files'". TechCrunch. Retrieved January 17, 2023.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Twitter_Files/Archive_7&oldid=1136117303"