Jump to content

Talk:Twitter Files/Archive 8

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

"Right wing" citation needed

@Kmccook reverted @Amthisguy saying the sentence is unclear. The sentence has 2 citations. So a citation needed tag is not called for. Did you mean the sentence is unclear or uncited? Andre🚐 02:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I believe the confusion is coming from assuming "right wing voices" is referring to Axios and Al Jazeera themselves, when really, the right wing, is who axios and al jazeera are attributing the opinions to. they reported on overall opinions rather than giving their own. At any rate, the attribution/citation is correct, and if the reverse were true and the opinions were coming from axios/al jazeera reporters, then the attribution wouldn't be proper. Amthisguy (talk) 18:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Page Not Currently Referencing Sept 2022 Aspen Institute "tabletop exercise"

The tabletop exercise (https://twitter.com/ShellenbergerMD/status/1604896328453980160?s=20&t=52VfIdmtP6IR3C9KyJB-nQ), on a Hunter Biden laptop, done a month before the NYPost story, run by folks who had the laptop and new of its legitimacy, who held the exercise to essentially fool Twitter leadership as to the validity of the story, and who knew the NYPost story was coming... how is this not one of the most controversial and newsworthy findings in the entire Twitter Files? Why isn't that posted somewhere in the page that's currently up for the public? [] ([]) 23:16, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

It would need a reliable source, for one thing. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:19, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
IDK man. I have no horse in this race, but the sources seem as reliable as anything that ever came out of Wikileaks. To at least mention it seems appropriate given other things are mentioned on the page right now which are, by the same standard, just as mundane and/or just as unsubstantiated.
But more than that, take the following line: "The Washington Post added that this was a result of the company's scenario-planning exercises to combat disinformation campaigns, which included potential "hack and leak" situations..." This is a direct reference, if I'm not mistaken, to the aforementioned Aspen Institute tabletop exercise, only all critical details are absent.
Doesn't the fact that this quote is currently on the live page add credibility to the Aspen Institute tabletop exercise or is it rather the other way around? Perhaps editors will remove this WAPO quote as, itself, unreliable and unsubstantiated? Mlxdo (talk) 00:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
I don't know where that "following line" came from, but taking it as fact that Yoel Roth took part in some "hack and leak" exercise to see how he or Twitter would respond to such a story.... so what? What's the bombshell? The part about it being by folks who had the laptop and new of its legitimacy, who held the exercise to essentially fool Twitter leadership as to the validity of the story, and who knew the NYPost story was coming, as the OP put it, would be a bombshell, if it's true. That needs a reliable source though. That's the OP's WP:OR. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:13, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
The "following line" came directly from the active page. And it seems to reference said tabletop. And... yeah... sorta is a bombshell. That's the point. Mlxdo (talk) 02:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
An exercise happened. Check. It involved a hypothetical Hunter Biden hack. Check. Interesting stuff but the rest is a leap into original research. Unless reliable sources point to the tabletop organizers knowing Hunter Biden's laptop was verified, it's purely conjecture to make the leap that they knew. Equally as likely they were acting off of alleged hacked materials of Hunter Biden that were circulating elsewhere apart from the laptop itself. Also possible the organizers had no contact with Delaware office to know the FBI possessed the laptop. Many scenarios and unless reliable sources write about them, we can't cover them. Slywriter (talk) 03:23, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Reporting on the facts of controversial events is always going to have some of these conjectures. I mean, especially when it first came out, all of Wikileaks and the related Snowden dumps, etc. involve a great deal of speculation, innuendo, and conjecture. Who could, for instance, authenticate the validity of many of the Snowden files? See WikiLeaks - Wikipedia.
It would be perfectly legitimate of the Wikipedia page on Twitter Files to essentially point out:
"A) Twitter leadership revealed what it represents as evidence of an Aspen Institute tabletop exercise; B) The validity of this claim is not fully understood; C) That's partly what makes the Twitter Files a public controversy. [] ([]) 20:03, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes it should be bigger news but the sources Wikipedia editors consider reliable are happy to ignore it as it undermines a narrative about the 2020 election that’s recently started to come apart. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:37, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Notice how some editors simply dismiss WP policies and guidelines by suggesting Wikipedia was built by folks with bad faith. This has become tiresome. And, I haven't the faintest idea what is meant by "undermines a narrative about the 2020 election that’s recently started to come apart". O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:48, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
This is indeed tiresome. The idea that a WaPo or a NYT would look away from a bombshell in the Twitter Files because it "doesn't fit the narrative" is ludicrous. They aren't touching it because it is most likely (I have no idea about this "tabletop exercise") a nothingburger designed to look like something nefarious. Find a RS to prove me wrong. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:52, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
NYT and WaPo have been heroes of the fight against government censorship for ages. Might have something to do with their 197 Pulitzer Prizes. (Unless Pulitzer is part of a WOKE conspiracy.) O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:05, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
It is not for Wikipedia editors to connect the dots between the exercise and reality. We are not researchers. At this point, patience is needed for scholars and other long form writers to parse what's out there and write their assessments which can be evaluated as reliable secondary sources. Slywriter (talk) 00:14, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes, patience will out. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:19, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Just following the rules. You know...just like on the laptop article. soibangla (talk) 02:36, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
To wit, the tabletop exercise was in reference to the fact that the intelligence agencies had a credible reason to believe in the likelihood of a "hack&dump" operation. The statements made by the attached Tweets are unreliable and jump to conclusions or make statements not backed up by evidence: And yet it's inconceivable Baker believed the Hunter Biden emails were either fake or hacked. The had included a picture of the receipt signed by Hunter Biden, and an FBI subpoena showed that the agency had taken possession of the laptop in December 2019. That doesn't follow, it is not inconceivable, he likely did not know if it was fake or hacked or tampered-with There is evidence that FBI agents have warned elected officials of foreign influence with the primary goal of leaking the information to the news media. This is a political dirty trick used to create the perception of impropriety. This is tinfoil hat stuff pretty much. “The unnecessary FBI briefing provided the Democrats and liberal media the vehicle to spread their false narrative that our work advanced Russian disinformation.” and isn't that really the crux of the complaint, this stuff is pretty much entirely unreliable. Yes, the FBI does inform targets when there is a credible risk or intelligence indicating the plot to target them... which was happening to Hunter Biden. Baker was doing his job and yes, part of his job was responding to inbound directives to avoid spreading illegal hacked material, or things that seemed like they were illegal hacked material, on social media. Because we're only getting a very selective reading of the information from this source it shouldn't go into Wikipedia per se. Wikipedia is not a news site, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that by its nature must follow, not lead, you are pushing WP:LEADNOTFOLLOW. We don't need to rush to include this until it's clearer. Andre🚐 00:18, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
This is a very solid argument:
"Wikipedia is not a news site, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that by its nature must follow, not lead, you are pushing WP:LEADNOTFOLLOW. We don't need to rush to include this until it's clearer"
I think, however, Wikipedia *is* following, and not leading, by pointing to the undisputed fact that internal Twitter files were revealed in the Twitter Files which reference the Aspen Institute tabletop exercise.
Any person can go to the source on Twitter to see for themselves that Twitter has made this allegation.
The validity of this particular allegation doesn't need to be proved (and indeed is likely never to be fully proved in a universally satisfactory way) to be relevant to an encyclopedia entry about the nature and contents of the entry we call Twitter Files. [] ([]) 20:11, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
[] We can't us the thread as a source, but you are free to cite what reliable sources are saying on the topic. Amthisguy (talk) 20:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
How is this significantly different (re: using the thread as a source) than in Wikipedia under Wikileaks where we state the Publications (re: WikiLeaks - Wikipedia)? Mlxdo (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
It's different because it's not the same: there isn't a transferrability. Sources all have their own consensus view. The so-called bombshells in the Twitter Files need to show up in weight in RS before we can include them here. No matter how many times people come to the talk page to start a duplicate thread about the same thing or questioning basic policies. Sorry to sound snippy but speculative Twitter threads aren't and will never be reliable for facts. Andre🚐 17:59, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Of course there isn't a transferability. But the Twitter Files are a direct disclosure from Twitter ownership. They aren't even whistleblower files, proper. Not sure you can get much more weight behind them aside from getting the raw data to further verification. We'll have to agree to disagree but I appreciate and respect your thoughts on this. We'll have to see how this unfolds! Mlxdo (talk) 02:26, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
It's actually the opposite that you need - not more raw data but more secondary analysis in reliable sources that are independent. Andre🚐 02:28, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Okay very good, thanks for the info. Mlxdo (talk) 02:30, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Extremely biased Wikipedia mods

I am terribly concerned with what appears to be a select few (about 3) people here that seem to be policing and controlling absolutely everything about this page, check the talks and edits and take note of familer names..

Anything substantial that makes the blue party look bad is very quicky quelled. Wordy and heavily-opiniated "reliablesources" chock up this page.

I can't be the only person that is noticing a skew of certain people exerting their beliefs on this page. 72.229.206.82 (talk) 14:18, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

There are good explanations about Reliable sources and primary sources in discussions above to review.Kmccook (talk) 14:46, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
For example, an article, American Nomenklatura: What the Twitter Files Show: was in Commentary, February 2023. But is it a reliable source or an opinion? Having had several opinion articles deleted I decided not to use it, but it did make some points that could have expanded coverage.Kmccook (talk) 14:54, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Hmm, I didn't know Twitter was run by Communist Party appointees. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:05, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
After a week of only reading changes, I have decided not to let unkindness stop me from trying to edit. I appreciate those who are straightforward. --Kathleen. Kmccook (talk) 16:46, 19 January 2023 (UTC) 
I'm straightforward. It's pointless to reply to a single purpose account IP who has come here only to complain and disparage longtime contributors. It was not a good move to re-start this after it had been expunged. SPECIFICO talk 16:52, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
I disagree. If we delete new editors, they become discouraged, and we look as if we do not welcome anyone who has something to contribute. Perhaps the person will learn how to contribute, but if we delete a person's contribution, they will feel the Talk page is insincere. I have tried to encourage women, especially, to join Wikipedia and many give up after an initial deletion that is not fully explained. By allowing this discussion there may be more understanding of the process. Newcomers could be directed to the Wikipedia:Teahouse - Wikipedia but I do not think they should be banished on their first effort. Kathleen. Kmccook (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
The "editor" posted three unhelpful, insulting, dishonest rants. Unpaid volunteers should not have to waste time feeding trolls. WP:Don't eat the troll's food O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:11, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
You say this person was "dishonest "and insulting and that is your opinion. And of course, calling someone with whom you disagree" a troll" shuts down a conversation. It seems to me that this person had a reasonable observation. Even by putting "editor" in quotes you insult. Is there a definition of an "editor"? That is, when does a person get to use/be given the title? Is there a number of edits? Length of time editing? We were all new once. It would be helpful when deleting someone's contributions if you were specific about the definition of editor. I also think that signing a true name would help a great deal, but that does not seem to be a generally accepted suggestion. Kathleen.Kmccook (talk) 17:43, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
WP:CIR. Andre🚐 17:55, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
If it's clearly marked as an op-ed it is usable for attributed opinion only and not for facts. Andre🚐 17:57, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
@Kmccook there haven't been any real sources that can be verified yet, there is no proof, everything is cherry-picked, it is so heavily redacted, and all of the metadata is missing to help verification. It's entertainment at best. Juvenile1178 (talk) 13:10, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
WP:RS is a core content policy and we're not going to violate it because of a few complaints. Please read WP:CIVIL WP:NPA as well. The editors and administrators enforcing the RS policy are not doing so because of bias or a political viewpoint and it is a WP:AGF violation to say that they are. Andre🚐 17:55, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. That is what we should explain to the person and not call them a troll. Kathleen.Kmccook (talk) 18:02, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
If that's done, it should go on user talk. SPECIFICO talk 18:09, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
It was explained to them, on December 28, December 10, and October 29. But, they continued posting unhelpful, accusatory, rants. That's trolling. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:09, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
@72.229.206.82 I highly recommend discussing disagreements about specific content on the talk page rather than complaining about editors. Amthisguy (talk) 18:17, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Fake news potential is too high

There haven't been any real sources that can be verified yet. In these "files" there is no proof, everything is cherry-picked, it is so heavily redacted, and all of the metadata is missing to help verification. It's entertainment at best and misinformation. At worst, it is giving into conspiracy theories that people will use to hurt others. Juvenile1178 (talk) 13:14, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

@Juvenile1178 There have been several reliable sources on the topic Amthisguy (talk) 16:59, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
@Amthisguy which one do you cite as "reliable"? It is also being released in a serial manner to keep engagement high. Juvenile1178 (talk) 04:17, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
@Juvenile1178 None of the twitter threads are reliable secondary sources. Reliable sources reporting on them are fine. Amthisguy (talk) 06:08, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
@Amthisguy but people are taking these "files" as gospel because it aligns with their beliefs, which is just confirmation bias. I have yet to see any reliable information from the twat files. Juvenile1178 (talk) 07:29, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes, we are very well keeping that in mind, hence why we haven't updated the article to include the newer installments yet due to a lack of reliable sources reporting on them. Another precaution we're taking is not stating the claims as fact and preceding claims with "[Person] said that..." or "[Person] reported that..." If and when RSs report on the Files their analyses will be used to counteract and/or support the claims. We're avoiding using sources such a Fox News, the NYPost, and the Twitter threads themselves since their reliability is questionable at best, propagandistic at worst; we are only using news sources that are considered reliable per WP:RSP.
On a side note, at some point it may be viable to add "conspiratorial media" and other kinds of categories to the article in the future. — SomeNeatGiraffes (talk) 16:59, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
@SomeNeatGiraffes There's a notable exception and that's installment 8 in which a companion piece was written by The Intercept, which is a reliable source. The twitter thread version is still self published, but the intercept version is not. Amthisguy (talk) 18:15, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Hiawatha Bray quote

The following[1] was added to the article: "Hiawatha Bray, writing at the The Boston Globe stated, 'the Twitter Files produces evidence that the FBI may have put a thumb on the scale by warning the company to expect a flood of fake news out of Russia just in time for the election.'" Hiawatha Bray is a reporter with a stub article, indicating no other article in WP links to it. Yes, we can add opinion to articles. But, there are three problems. This is an opinion of someone without any notable expertise in the area. This is an opinion based upon edited material. The opinion doesn’t even make a claim about what happened, but says it “may have” happened. Well, anything “may have” happened. Without evidence, that makes it a conspiracy theory. The article goes on to suggest other conceivable governmental misdeeds without evidence; only based on their supposed ability to do so. How is this useful? Particularly in an article that is based on WP:RECENTISM and is highly controversial. Can an encyclopedia not wait for actual evidence as opposed to pushing conjecture? O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:46, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Hiawatha Bray writes for a reliable source, The Boston Globe. He is a technology columnist. His Wikipedia page may be a stub, but here is additional background:: Hiawatha Bray - Reporter - The Boston GlobeKmccook (talk) 19:41, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I read that. He is a tech writer, not a political reporter. I don't see him as a reliable source for this subject particularly for such a controversial article -- and his article betrays his willingness to engage in conjecture. The comment you quoted, the initial comment, and concluding comments in his article are based on pure conjecture. This is the stuff of conspiracy theories. Seriously, why can't we wait for the dust to settle before adding conjecture in an encyclopedia? WP:NODEADLINE O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:08, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
The Twitter Files are as much about tech and content moderation--if not more--than politics.Kmccook (talk) 20:15, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
His comments talked of Russia, the FBI, the election, and basically claimed the FBI rigged the election ("placed a thumb on the scale"). This is extremely political and such an extreme claim has not been backed up. The article ends with the question, how will we protect ourselves from the government. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Managing content moderation is not technology any more than making popcorn with a microwave or online shopping. SPECIFICO talk 20:41, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Of course, content moderation has technical considerations. There are many ways to manage content moderation with tech that is not at all analogous to shopping or cooking. And if this is an insinuation that a female editor only understands online shopping and cooking you are missing the point. --Kathleen. Kmccook (talk) 20:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Sounds like you do not know much about cooking or shopping then. Lotsa technology involved. Please don't make this personal. SPECIFICO talk 21:09, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Please stop suggesting that anyone here is insinuating anything whatsoever according to your gender. This violates WP:PA and WP:AGF The reporter is basically suggesting the election was fraudulent. This is NOT tech. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:11, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
This particular quote doesn't seem to be about content moderation, but about the FBI putting a thumb on the scale of the election, so I agree with removing this. Andre🚐 21:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
That's not what the journalist meant, but that's the issue. The quote was taken out of context in a way that certainly makes it sound like it's claiming the election was rigged. Amthisguy (talk) 21:57, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Read the end of the article. Certainly sounds like that's what he means. But yes, it was out of context. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:33, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Well, there's no need to discuss the content not quoted, but in context it's pretty clear that the "thumb on the scale" is referring to influencing "Twitter’s decision to suppress" the NYP story referenced in the preceding paragraph. Out of that context it looks like the sentence is talking about tipping the election itself. Amthisguy (talk) 03:44, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
"May" is the only word I needed to read in the quote. Exclude. It just one writer's opinion and they don't believe their own words enough to own it completely, so it's not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Also think that particular statement is entirely political and so needs to come from experts in the political field, not tech journalists. At this point, patience is key. More will be analyzed in the weeks, months and years to follow. Slywriter (talk) 22:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Should we only trust lies by authors who exude confidence? That's obviously not a good system of belief. 69.169.184.185 (talk) 14:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
The Boston Globe has a strong reputation for honest reporting and fact checking, so if Hiawatha Bray writes in the paper that something is certainly true, then we can be reasonably confident it is not a lie. The claims that he asserts as fact are sourced and verifiable, such as the claim that the Twitter Files show the FBI warned Twitter about Russian interference in the 2020 election to the Twitter Files, and this influenced deliberations inside the company. The same cannot be said of a random person on the Internet or an opinionated political commentator with no reputation for fact checking, who Wikipedia would not consider a reliable source. -- Beland (talk) 23:57, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
A tech writer has no greater insight on how Twitter is run compared to a political reporter? (Personal attack removed) 2600:8805:A985:4300:8DFC:ABF3:6918:A43D (talk) 23:38, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
It’s a reliable source, and it’s properly attributed. I see no reason to exclude it. We use sources like this all the time. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:16, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Tech writers should stick to tech subjects. A one-off lie by a non-expert would be a weight issue. ValarianB (talk) 15:45, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
I don't have an issue with including a tech journalist's opinion on tech, which is what this is. However, the statement lacks context. As others have said, it does make it sound like the journalist is suggesting the election was rigged; this is not the claim of the journalist at all and is taken out of context. What the journalist is saying is that the FBI may have influenced Twitter's decision to censor the NYP Hunter Biden Laptop story, through a warning they gave earlier, but Twitter made the decision all on their own.
That Twitter censored the story because they were worried about a Russian hack or Russian disinformation, is already the majority opinion, as well as Twitter's own claim for why it happened.
In short, the statement as is doesn't belong on wikipedia, because it's taken out of context. Amthisguy (talk) 21:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

FTR, this text has since been removed from the article. -- Beland (talk) 23:49, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Are Twitter Files About First Amendment/Censorship or Politics?

Interesting, but irrelevant for Wikipedia. Just document what RS say.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I have approached editing the "Twitter Files" as a First Amendment/Censorship issue, not a political issue. Would appreciate good faith discussion. --Kathleen Kmccook (talk) 15:55, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

We can only speculate about why Musk is doing this and what the full conversations state. But, we don't do that here. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:07, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
It is definitively NOT a first amendment issue, as has been explained, because the 1st amendment does not ensure "free speech" on privately owned and operated internet platforms. Nor is it at all a censorship issue as nothing was censored by the government or its agents - all the information is and was available. Content moderation, yes, and regulating what a private website wants posted on a private platform. It is most definitively a political issue. Andre🚐 16:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
To characterize it as a First Amendment/Censorship issue is itself a political issue. So, no. SPECIFICO talk 16:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
If unknown censors--government agency employees--pre-screened what was allowed on the Twitter platform and users of the Twitter platform did not know what was removed at the government agencies' behest because they thought Twitter was a public square, then it is a First amendment issue. --Kathleen Kmccook (talk) 17:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Nope. The first amendment doesn't protect private social media sites. That is not a public square. Twitter voluntarily worked with intelligence agencies and they were even compensated for that. Andre🚐 17:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
There is no evidence that the government censored Twitter. Government intelligence agencies warned Twitter about foreign propaganda aimed at affecting our elections and the government health agencies warned about Covid misinformation, estimated to have cost hundreds of thousands of lives. Twitter decided what to do with that info. The FBI also made requests for info regarding foreign agencies for which Twitter expenses were reimbursed as per US law. As for the First Amendment, here is the text:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
In any case, it is not up to us to make such judgements. It is up to reliable sources. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:42, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Nice, we don't actually quote the Bill of Rights often enough on Wikipedia, but it's a primary source. Here is a secondary source description: The First Amendment of the US Constitution limits the government—not private entities—from restricting free expression. This is why companies like Facebook and Twitter can moderate content—and also why they could suspend then-President Trump’s accounts during his last weeks in office [2] Andre🚐 17:45, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
How can something be a first amendment issue without being political? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:53, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Juan Perón used legal action against once privately owned newspapers and created a state-dominated media. This was in Argentina before the Internet. (James Cane. The Fourth Enemy Journalism and Power in the Making of Peronist Argentina, 1930-1955. Penn State University Press, 2012). Currently some states in the U.S. are passing laws about what books can be included in school libraries. Publishers will go back to what they did in Texas with a conservative school board making curricular decisions--publish what governments pre-approve. Private companies can segue to state domination. Kathleen. Kmccook (talk) 18:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
So you are approaching this as a political issue, why did you say you weren't? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
It is a legal issue. Censorship is a tool used by people in power regardless of their political identification. Kathleen. Kmccook (talk) 18:18, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Uh, ok, but it's an issue around politics and the controversies associated with politics. Many issues are legal issues and social issues and political or economic issues as well. However, returning to the point, I think Hiawatha Bray is not an expert on any of this. Andre🚐 18:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Laws are political, there isn't a separation there. Do you mean partisan instead of political? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

"Released"

The article uses the word "released" quite a few times. Is this the word RSs use? It seems a little misleading to me. What was "released" exactly, by whom and to whom? For example, we say "The third installment was released by Matt Taibbi on December 9". But what Taibbi did on December 9 was post a Twitter thread and maybe then publish that on his Substack or whatever. As far as I can see, he didn't release files, but rather files (documents? emails? screenshots of emails?) were released to him which he then screenshot and reported on (or, rather, tweeted about). Is that right? I feel we should use more precise language. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:39, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Published might be better English. Slywriter (talk) 18:24, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Done. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:47, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

U.S. House of Representatives, Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government

Today I added a link to the C-SPAN video of the March 9, 2023 Hearing of the U.S. House of Representatives, Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government where two Twitter Files contributors testified. It was removed. Regardless of editors' opinion of the event or the Chair, this was an event that happened, and the Hearings will be part of the Judiciary Committee records. I did not make any subjective observation about the Hearing--just that it happened and is now on C-SPAN. It will be available with all testimony, submitted documents and discussion at Gov.info. at the site for Hearings of the 118th Congress. Kmccook (talk) 05:25, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I dont see a clear justification for removal. A committee meeting would generally be due. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:15, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
These are primary sources. We would need secondary sources that put this testimony and opening statements in perspective. Even then, we should wait for the hearings to conclude. We must avoid raw assertions. Opening statements, in particular, are political and are often littered with misinformation. The McCarthy hearings were an important historical event. But, an encyclopedia should not have included allegations made therein during the hearings either. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:34, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Only wikipedia do you need live unfiltered video to be carried by CNN to be an knowledge artifact. All the newsreels of WWII would be non linkable because the studio and screens were bought and paid for by the goverement.
C-SPAN is a consortium so it is secondary source, and it has editors that ensure the video is not delivered by anything other than the house cameras. C-SPAN is a reliable source, stop promoting POV flat media view. 2601:248:C000:3F:6CB5:C1DB:DBAF:A9D6 (talk) 22:42, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
The link simply shows a video without any commentary. The video is a primary source. The committee is controlled by one party. They control who testifies, who is subpoenaed, what is released, and much of the private interview contents. I don't think we should link to any videos no matter what party is in control without secondary sources. And, I am not promoting anything and have no idea what "POV flat media view" means. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:46, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
The complete video of the hearing is now posted at C-SPAN. I understand about the lede, but the citation is useful an external link to the proceedings. Kmccook (talk) 14:06, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
The very name of the committee is a conspiracy theory. And, it is NOT the complete hearings as the hearings haven't ended. We are better than that. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:13, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
As long as we're not using it as a citation, seems fine. ValarianB (talk) 14:25, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

There's substantial coverage of Taibbi's ham-fisted and seemingly disingenuous and unsure testimony. Some of that assessment and some detail surely will end up in the article text with secondary and tertiary sources. SPECIFICO talk 16:05, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

The same characteristics could apply to the questioning. At times, it sounds like a conspiracy convention. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:20, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
For our meatless or vegan readers, we might substitute "muffin-mouthed". SPECIFICO talk 18:00, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Like it or not, this is a congressional committee. I don't see any good reason not to include C-SPAN links for it. We should also include relevant secondary sourced coverage to provide context. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:05, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Well, we may have two years worth of links to unfiltered, politically motivated conspiracy theories on C-SPAN. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:38, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Taibbi's coverage today is that of a mainstream media zero, it is almost certain by the editors who participate in this article that he will be near perfect in his reporting over the past year. 2601:248:C000:3F:6CB5:C1DB:DBAF:A9D6 (talk) 22:37, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
What is mainstream media zero? Taibbi's "reporting" is slanted, without context, and incomplete. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:56, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
The problem with Taibbi is that we continue to call him a "journalist" because he started his career that way. He's a writer, but not a journalist by our definition or the narratives of RS concerning his recent actions and statements. SPECIFICO talk 02:23, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
That's why I used MOS:SCAREQUOTES. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:46, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Guess time to deprecate NYT then since they refer to him as a journalist. Or maybe someone should just close this WP:NOTFORUM thread. Slywriter (talk) 04:27, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Virality Project

The 19th installment of the Twitter Files reports on the Virality Project at Stanford. I cited a NewsNation item and it was deleted. Twitter Files #19 reports on the use of JIRA software to create a monitoring plan for Covid-related content. This deserves a section. https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1636729166631432195 Why would this news report not be considered reliable as coverage of the release? https://www.newsnationnow.com/business/tech/twitter-files-virality-project/Kmccook (talk) 13:43, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Let's ask User:ValarianB why they don't consider NewsNation a RS for this. I was tempted to just revert them as their edit summary didn't seem reasonable. NewsNation (and Dan Abrams) seems like a relatively neutral source (at least for this purpose) and is not mentioned at WP:RSP, IOW its reliability has not been questioned. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
The sparse article looks like it was written in one minute. It also includes a strange conclusion that censorship is causing mistrust in the CDC when it seems more likely that accusations of censorship are the cause. If we are going to list all of these cherry picked releases created by someone with an obvious personal interest (dissing previous management), oughtn't an encyclopedia find better sources capable of documenting with appropriate context? O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:18, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
The section about the Virality release of Twitter Files #19 is not providing an opinion. I was seeking a source that would be acceptable. There has been extensive coverage by [[Chris Hedges]] and Christian Britschgi from Reason. I'll re-add with the Britschgi citation.Kmccook (talk) 17:21, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Extensive? Mainly to the small number of people who are Muskies, Taibbitubbies, or who for some other reason take an undue interest in Republican right talking points and fabrications. This is way too low a bar for NPOV and Verification. SPECIFICO talk 17:35, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
"Extensive" coverage is not required. Notability does not apply to content in prose articles like this. We just need to document the existence and topic. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:03, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
The addition did more than that. The nineteenth installment of the Twitter Files, released March 17, 2023, raises questions about the government and social media censorship. The text suggests that government censorship is a given. There are continuing attempts to state that these cherry picked releases from documents mainstream sources have not been able to see have specific meanings. We do not know the context. Presumably, that's why the major reliable sources are avoiding the subject. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
The Chris Hedges Report | Substack has covered this. He has a large readership. Isn't it a norm of the collective intelligence process of Wikipedia that we be respectful of each other? and not belittle other editors? Kmccook (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
I have restored your NewsNation source as it is a RS. Chris Hedges' Substack account is not a RS for anything other than himself. Per WP:ABOUTSELF it could be used on his own biography here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:11, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Chris Hedges is a quite interesting fellow. However, I don’t think we’d consider him a journalist for the last couple decades and many would say his views verge on the extreme. We need better sources for extraordinary, accusatory claims. One must consider that if you need to go to highly biased sources because the cream of the crop are not publishing a thing, there’s likely a reason for this. I also strongly disagree with restoring this, particularly with text that looks like we are saying this raises questions of censorship in WikiVoice. The source of the source is terrible; which is likely why unbiased sources aren't covering this. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
I agree about Hedges. I also tend to agree about the opinion statements, which should be attributed. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:54, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
O, I would not cite Chris Hedges here but was using him as an example of a source where many people are reading about the Twitter Files, so all the more reason to cover here in an objective way.Kmccook (talk) 20:40, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
The problem with Reason, or any other source taking this info at face value, is that they cannot know what is true. Unless I've missed something, no journalists have seen the documents in context. It's like Kevin McCarthy handing cherry picked videos to Tucker Carlson, and Carlson showing them to his viewers saying this is proof that people now in prison were just tourists taking selfies. The NYT and WaPo are long time champions of freedom of speech and government transparency. Yet, they are spending little time on this. The NYT refered to the "so-called Twitter Files"[3]. NPR said: "Elon Musk is using the Twitter Files to discredit foes and push conspiracy theories"[4]. These are top sources. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:52, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
We agree about Musk, Taibbi, et al, and their mission, but if that's your argument for whether we include or exclude content, then you are violating NPOV and "verifiability, not truth". You're saying that because it's "not truth" or misleading we should not cover it. No, we document all notable shit here. That it is shit makes no difference, only whether it's notable. We document the existence of shit and describe what it is, without taking sides (as you are doing), but do not advocate it. We publish the debunking and criticism from RS. Thus we are doing the public a service.
Between us, of course we take sides with facts and RS, and we might express our opinions here, but we don't do it within articles or allow our opinions to affect whether or not we include content. If it's notable, then it's part of the "sum total of human knowledge" we are supposed to cover here. "If someone comes here and doesn't find it, we have failed." (paraphrase of Baseball Bugs). -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:19, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
That's not true. This is not between truth and veracity. There is no veracity and therefore no known truth. I gave quotes from NYT and NPR. Our article looks like it is giving credence to something that the best RS are ridiculing when they bother at all. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Valjean, I agree with O3000 here. Google may be the sum of everything. Wikipedia is the sum of significant facts and views. Also, you may be confusing less experienced editors by fuzzying the distinction between "notable" and "noteworthy" in our process. One or two marginal sources for what-all was said by somebody or other last week is not our standard for NPOV weight and therefore article inclusion. As 3000 has said the thrust of RS mainstream narrative on the title topic of this page is that the whole mess is a bumbling attempt at political and personal aggrandizement by a teetering twittering Musk and his allies of convenience on the Republican stage. So we don't need to repeat every detail that has not received DUE coverage in the mainstream. SPECIFICO talk 12:09, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
You make assumptions about motivation of editors; this seems to me a pre-judgment that erases good faith efforts to expand the narrative as if your opinions and your motivations are the only truth. I am not a Republican, but if I were you observation indicates that no one who would identify as a Republican would be permitted to participate. I am a registered Democrat. Kmccook (talk) 17:49, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
If you are trying to address one or more editors about recent article or talk page edits, it would be helpful to state your concern with specificity and detail. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 19:07, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

O3000, our article certainly should not look "like it is giving credence to something that the best RS are ridiculing when they bother at all." We can agree on that, so the solution is to fix the wording, not delete the whole thing.

We are dealing with a fringe topic, so we are to document its existence by appealing to "parity of sources" because that's the way Wikipedia tells us to act when we are faced with few RS. The topic is notable enough for an article, so we just need to document the existence of each release and then fill the article with what RS say about them. We should not defend or otherwise give credence to such a subject. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

But, we do look "like it is giving credence to something that the best RS are ridiculing when they bother at all." And, one of the editors keeps adding biased sources because she apparently believes this and, not surprisingly, can't find good enough sources for exceptional claims. Indeed, extremist accusations against various officials have resulted in calls, for example, for the execution of Dr. Fauci by a member of Congress. And, RS say very little about this because the WP:sky is blue. We live in strange times. We must be careful about our part in these times. Yes, we must document. But, thinking back to the McCarthy hearings mentioned by her, we cannot be a part of the large number of people who had to exile themselves to avoid the consequences of those congressional hearings. (And, a municipal DA is about to feel the wrath of such.) Frankly, I think this article should be AfD'ed until the dust has settled for a host of obvious guidelines. As that would fail, let us document that this exists (although it would be better in articles about Taibbi and Musk). Let us not act as a detailed repository of accusations against living persons, without foundation, used by Congressfolk to call for the dissolution of the CDC, IRS, and FBI, that trace back to one person who lost billions in a flawed takeover. This is an encyclopedia. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:38, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
I like the idea of seeing what's left after the appropriate content is placed in the Musk and Taibbi articles. As I've said before we should not even be describing Taibbi as a journalist here without clearly differentiating his non-journalist role in this matter. SPECIFICO talk 22:40, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Missing coverage here

We are starting to have holes in the list of episodes, as the previous section about the deletion of the Virality Project section shows. That is the 19th installment.

We are missing 11-14 and 18.

Here is a complete list:

There have been 19 episodes so far and we should mention each one.

We also need to make the numbers more prominent, possibly by bolding or by inclusion in the heading. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:55, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree. This has grown to be an important set of releases and people will come here for an overview.Kmccook (talk) 17:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
What on Earth is important about this? It is important to those who believe conspiracy theories. The most reliable sources are ignoring it because the actual full files are kept secret by Musk who is pushing conspiracy theories. Actual RS are saying something very different than what this aberrant article is pushing. Why are we acting as tools for this one man? This is an encyclopedia, not InfoWars. WP:NOTNEWS WP:10YT WP:SOAPBOX WP:RS WP:LETSNOTEMBARASSOURSELVES. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:24, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
where did you learn all of that? 2001:56A:78B5:3000:AD14:9EFD:996E:2066 (talk) 17:27, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Twitter Files #18 was a tweeted version of Matt Taibbi's Testimony to Congress on March 9, 2023.. Michael Shellenberger also tweeted his testimony to Congress the same day. Tabbi's version is the Twitter File #18. I referenced them both but maybe Shellenberger's should not be included. Also added an article about this. Kmccook (talk) 23:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

This all fails NPOV. We dont just create a repository of propaganda and polemic. SPECIFICO talk 00:56, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

This is a report on testimony before a Congressional Committee. The House Un-American Activities Committee hearings are referenced in Wikipedia and while I well-know one example is not support for using Hearings as a source, it does seem relevant to reference the Twitter Files #18 as they are a summary of the testimony submitted. In addition to the coverage at Reason, there has been reporting at "Forbes Breaking News" on YouTube: 'Censorship Industrial Complex': Twitter Files Journalist Michael Shellenberger Issues Dire Warning Kmccook (talk) 02:28, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Find some sources for the missing ones and add them. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:39, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Kmccook, don't worry. It's a bit early to find many sources. With time, they will show up. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:14, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Thank-you. I was hoping to fill in some of the missing files and was off work today so maybe got over-eager.Kmccook (talk) 03:33, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
You tried and got some helpful advice and criticism. Next time will be better. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:40, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Saying this was only condemned by the right implies that the rest of the world supports this censorship.

its not hard to see a strong basis for Musk's claims in the article. 2001:56A:78B5:3000:AD14:9EFD:996E:2066 (talk) 17:26, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

What is clear is that Yoel Roth, Twitter's former head of trust and safety, meet weekly with the FBI, DHS as well as the office of the DNI throughout the 2020 election.

How is that "no evidence"?! 2001:56A:78B5:3000:AD14:9EFD:996E:2066 (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

The only instance of "no evidence" in the article is:

Elon Musk tweeted that Twitter had acted "under orders from the government," though Taibbi reported that he found no evidence of government involvement in the laptop story, tweeting, "Although several sources recalled hearing about a 'general' warning from federal law enforcement that summer about possible foreign hacks, there's no evidence—that I've seen—of any government involvement in the laptop story."

soibangla (talk) 17:38, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Yeah. Installment 16 definitely shows that screenshot saying the us intelligence community has say in who can "advertise" on twitter.
That's not "evidence" somehow?! 2001:56A:78B5:3000:AD14:9EFD:996E:2066 (talk) 17:53, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
No, that is not evidence. It is cherry-picked, out of context material published by someone pushing a point of view. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:07, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

As far as we know those pictures were released consensually. Did Biden deny having released pictures he won't admit are of him, cause that sounds like having it both ways. 2001:56A:78B5:3000:AD14:9EFD:996E:2066 (talk) 17:37, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

They were popular only with Trump supporters, not specifically supporters of the attack. 2001:56A:78B5:3000:AD14:9EFD:996E:2066 (talk) 17:46, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

This involves two Senators, but according to twitter the entire installment was about Trump

Again, not hard to see what Musk meant. 2001:56A:78B5:3000:AD14:9EFD:996E:2066 (talk) 17:51, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Please stop creating new sections for every thought. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:08, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Could an editor fix the archive counter so we can remove some of the clutter from this talk page? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 18:26, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Removal of "Right wing" and addition of "Left wing"

These changes are obviously not NPOV and violate the existing consensus on the page as well as the long-standing version. @Kcmastrpc please stop edit warring to restore this version. Andre🚐 19:57, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

The source cited uses a mix of both where the prose prior to my edits did not. The version which was updated to meet NPOV guidelines has been stable for 48h. I'd request that you stop edit warring, and justify why the version that includes both left-wing and right-wing should not stand. Kcmastrpc (talk) 20:00, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
It has not been stable for 48 hours. The previous version was stable for months. Please self-revert as your bold changes have been challenged. They are not NPOV and they distort and change the meaning and the facts of the story. Andre🚐 20:01, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
You've made two claims that aren't true. It was stable for 48h, and I did not remove "right wing" and add "left wing". Further, the changes you reverted to were heavily biased against right-wing. Kcmastrpc (talk) 20:09, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
It was never stable. Your changes were all reverted almost immediately. Your changes are being contested: 48h is irrelevant. As far as your baseless WP:ASPERSION and accusation of bias: there is no bias here. Except for your POV push crusade to change the meaning of the sources. The story in the source is that right-wing pushers have claimed the Twitter Files has any there-there, while it was not merely left-wing critics but critics in general that made this observation. Per the source material. Andre🚐 20:12, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
To be clear, I revised the LEAD to WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY instead of just copying it, and I updated the body to actually reflect the source that was cited by adding "left leaning". If you don't like either, feel free to rewrite it, but reverting is WP:UNDUE. Kcmastrpc (talk) 20:11, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Reverting can't be UNDUE. WP:BRD and you have been multiply reverted by multiple editors. Andre🚐 20:12, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
The Aljazera source clearly calls out both left and right sides, where wikivoice leaves out the "left" portion. This is WP:UNDUE and I welcome other editors input on how to WP:BALANCE in both the body and the lead. Kcmastrpc (talk) 20:25, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
WP:FALSEBALANCE. WP:CHERRYPICKING Andre🚐 20:35, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I completely agree with that perspective given the status quo. Kcmastrpc (talk) 20:40, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I've tagged NPOV to the article to gain more feedback on this issue, and have added it to the NPOV notice board. The diff in dispute is here. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:59, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

You have added an article wide shame tag which is not allowed and then readded after a revert. You are also edit-warring in changes after challenge. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:22, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Your challenge was not policy based. Do you have anything else to add? What policy states someone can label an edit as "shameful" without consensus? Are you suggesting WP:ASPERSIONS? Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:23, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
You tagged the entire article claiming its neutrality is disputed over one paragraph after a very brief discussion. This page already has 130 watchers. There is no need for this tag. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

How about we remove both? Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I believe that was attempted at some point and it was reverted. I'm not opposed to this proposal. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:22, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
I believe it is sourced to RS that it wasn't the WP:WEASEL "some critics" that accused of a liberal bias. Removing both would be removing the liberal bias allegation. Which I'm OK with since it's a right wing fringe talking point. Andre🚐 15:29, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
I can agree with my summation as being contentious now that I reread it. Alternatively, we can always add "left-leaning" AND "right-leaning" to WP:BALANCE. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:32, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
No, that would be a WP:FALSEBALANCE. The story in RS is that right-wingers accused Twitter of a liberal bias - largely without rational basis. Andre🚐 15:33, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
The story in RS also states that left-wingers largely dismissed the claims as frivolous. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:34, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
No, every mainstream RS and commentator dismissed the claims as frivolous as well as experts - not just left-winger partisans. Andre🚐 15:35, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Since this is an article about WP:FRINGE, as you mentioned in some other disputes, WP:PARITY suddenly doesn't apply here? Again, this is why I added the NPOV tag, to solicit more feedback. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:37, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
PARITY means we can use self-published or lower-quality sources to debunk equally or lesser quality sources. How does that apply? Andre🚐 15:38, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
You're right it doesn't, but still doesn't resolve the WP:BALANCE with regard to the sources used. I don't want to go down the road of WP:CHERRYPICK though, and would rather we just come to a compromise. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:44, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I am not going to read through an edit war, so will ask a simple question.

Can we have an RS for "left-leaning" and one for "right-leaning"? Slatersteven (talk) 15:34, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

It's covered extensively in the Twitter_Files#Journalists section, but the sources used as reference in the lede include the Al Jazeera article that was mentioned (contains both left and right wing descriptors) Andre🚐 15:37, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
The source Andre is referring to is, https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2022/12/7/musk-says-twitter-lawyer-fired-amid-hunter-biden-laptop-storm -- "Taibbi’s publication of the files drew a polarised response over the weekend. While media figures and politicians on the right cast the documents as confirmation of Twitter’s liberal bias and hostility to free speech, many on the left described it as a non-story that simply showed the platform’s good-faith efforts to grapple with difficult moderation decisions." The article is cited in the last sentence of the lead. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:41, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Seems enough for us to use both then. Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Let's be clear on the diff[5] I oppose both removing the idea that "some critics" are right-wing, and characterizing in the body that the journalists' consensus was left-wing. Andre🚐 15:46, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Which has nothing to do with my point. Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
You said to "use both" labels. I'm not opposed in general to using both labels but I'm pointing out that "use both" could mean restoring the left-wing label in the body, i.e., many left-leaning technology journalists, which I do not think we should do. Andre🚐 15:50, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
So...how do we use both? 15:52, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Matt Taibbi deactivating his Twitter account

According to Zoe Schiffer of Platformer News, Matt Taibbi will be abandoning his Twitter account shortly due to Twitter blocking links to Substack, and that the decision will come with a price as far as any future Twitter Files reports are concerned."

I'm searching for secondary RS that are covering this now, that aren't just Twitter posts. But I'm leaving a note here so others can keep an eye out too. Assuming there is sufficient sourcing, as Taibbi is one of the major contributors to the releases this might be something we should consider adding to the article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:17, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

List of sources, feel free to add more to it:
Note, having difficulty finding sources at the moment as the news is "breaking", there's a few MREL sources that I could add but I'm trying to keep this GREL for now. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:22, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Sounds like WP:CRYSTAL at this point in time... Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:21, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

"no policy based rationale for reinserting non RS content"

@Mr Ernie, actually, WP:PARITY is a policy. Andre🚐 13:32, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, which says Of course, for any viewpoint described in an article, only reliable sources should be used; Wikipedia's verifiability and biographies of living persons policies are not suspended simply because the topic is a fringe theory. which is why I used that particular edit summary. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:55, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
And the TechDirt article would be suitable per parity to debunk Taibbi's Substack and Twitter posts. Since they are equally self-published but suitable per the PARITY guideline which allows usage of self-published blog articles by journalists to debunk other self-published blog articles by journalists. Furthermore the TechDirt piece is mostly relying on MSNBC which is GENREL. Andre🚐 14:58, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
So why not use MSNBC? Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
That is a reasonable solution to the issue Andre🚐 15:28, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
@Soibangla FYI Andre🚐 15:33, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
I don't see MSNBC includes the Techdirt analysis. As far as it being a blog, it's been operating for 26 years, establishing it as influential in topic areas it covers, including this one. It's not the Wordpress blog I made for my mom 20 years ago that quickly fell dormant, as most blogs do, which obviously should be impermissible here. soibangla (talk) 16:26, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Twitter blocking searches on from:mtalibbi

"Matt Taibbi’s Twitter Files tweets haven’t been deleted but it appears Twitter is blocking users from searching for any and all of his posts (including his Twitter Files tweets)" -- https://twitter.com/MattBinder/status/1644845539941335044

See also https://twitter.com/jttiehen/status/1644758707996094469

Sandizer (talk) 23:41, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Internecine conflicts are interesting and can be DUE. Let's wait a bit and see what happens. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:10, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
This probably has more to do with Elon's war on Substack than censorship on Twitter, except of course, it is censorship on Twitter. Sandizer (talk) 00:17, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
And ironic if you read all the discussion here. But then, isn't irony ironic? O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:23, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Searching on mtaibbi goes straight to his timeline and TF#19 of Mar 17 pinned up top. soibangla (talk) 00:22, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Twitter_Files/Archive_8&oldid=1150868687"