Talk:Twitter Files/Archive 5

As detailed here, most of the mainstream media in the US has been downplaying or ignoring the FBI and other government participation in the Twitter censorship while focusing on the recent feud between Musk and journalists linking to the flight-tracking website. Probably should add this to the section on media reaction. 108.18.156.124 (talk) 14:38, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

it hasn't even been 24 hours. unlike Fox, MSM is not Taibbi's stenographer soibangla (talk) 16:37, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Seconded with soiblanga; we should wait for the thread to digest and sources other than Fox or the sea of niche conservative sites that seem to copy off each other's articles to arise. Moreover, commentary about the MSM not reporting as much on the files already exists under the "Reactions" section, SomeNeatGiraffes (talk) 17:07, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

In light of Sharyl Attkisson's long list of news (sic) media failures during the Trump years, there's hardly widespread agreement on which media sources should be considered RS. Just one glaring example: on 8/15/2017, a New York Times headline said, "Trump Gives White Supremacists an Unequivocal Boost," the very day he said that "the neo-Nazis and white nationalists ... should be condemned totally" (while clearly-enough referring to a different group - people with opinions about removing confederate monuments - as "very fine people"). To this date, the NYT has not corrected this widely-debunked smear/lie. How reliable is the NYT (when it comes to political coverage)?

And is Bret Baier not considered a RS by virtue of appearing on Fox News?

Chris R. Cathcart 107.77.230.218 (talk) 18:16, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Wrong page. Discussions like this go on WP:RSN. (With my apologies to RSN) O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:21, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

I have tried to add a section on the 6th installment of the Twitter Files about the team of 80 FBI agents working with Twitter. The section was deleted on sourcing. My source is TK News by Matt Taibbi the substack article where the Twitter Thread is reproduced. Here is what I added:

The sixth installment was released on Twitter on December 16, 2022.The thread was reproduced on TK News with Matt Taibbi on December 17, 2022. This thread reported on the team of 80 FBI agents assigned to work with Twitter employees on cancellations of accounts. 1. Footnote: Taibbi, Matt. December 17, 2022. Twitter Files: The "Twitter, the FBI Subsidiary" Thread TK News by Matt Taibbi

What can be done to include this information? Kmccook (talk) 19:08, 17 December 2022‎ (UTC)

Just do as we always do...only use independent secondary RSes. Taibbi's Substack is only usable for info about himself and his POV in his own bio. Only other sources can establish the content has due weight for mention here. I have no doubt it does, so use the RSes that document this event, its content, and their views on it.

Please sign your post. Did it for you. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:26, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

But the sources Wikipedia accepts are all singing the same tune, so it seems to me that going to the actual thread at Taibbi's TK News would provide the information. These rules box in anything but approved reporting from sources that are unhappy with the Twitter files. I know the rules you cite. I don't want to use an unapproved source, but the approved sources have a chorus they are singing in and won't accept discordance with the script they all follow. sorry I did not sign. Here you go.Kmccook (talk) 19:52, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the answer is it's sucks and deal with it. The community has deemed most mainstream media reliable and most far right/left media unreliable. Contrarian sources may arise in due time that don't parrot, but Wikipedia is not the news and has no deadline. We can wait for the situation to develop. Slywriter (talk) 20:00, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes sir. Order received.Kmccook (talk) 20:07, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

The acceptability of a source has nothing to do with its political POV or bias (unless its bias is so extreme it causes violations of normal journalistic practice leading to unfactual and false reporting). Good sources follow normal journalistic practices like editorial oversight and fact-checking. The stability of a source is also a factor. There are many other factors (see WP:RS). If you want to use sources that other editors do not accept, you are welcome to appeal to WP:RSN and get wider community input. Then the judgment on the source might end up listed at WP:RSP (which is not a complete list). Other than a particular source, the issue of using WP:Primary and WP:Self-published sources has nothing to do with political POV. It is the way we prevent WP:OR and WP:SYNTH violations.

You have noted that acceptable sources "are all singing the same tune." Well, in controversial situations, one side is usually more factual than the other, and one would expect that good sources would point that out, IOW they take the side of the side of those speaking the truth. Most normal people and sources do that. If they don't, we do not consider them RS.

So it's a good thing that RS are all singing the same tune in such situations. We do not present both sides as if they are equally reliable or factual. They CANNOT be. That would be a false balance/bothsiderism, both of which violate good journalism and ethics. We do not allow that here. When someone makes a false statement, we do not allow it to stand alone and deceive readers. (If you find such a situation, correct it.) We know it's false because RS say so, so we include words like false/untrue/baseless AND the RS which describes the false statement in that way. That's why Wikipedia content is controversial and factual. The offended side will always complain, so when liars (and those who believe the lies) complain, we must be doing something right. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:20, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I have read the files and think everyone should who is interested in this topic. That is why I cited the files rather than a secondary source. As you make clear, the Wikipedia rules forbid this. There shouldn't be a side. I was linking to the printed-out thread at TK News by Matt Taibbi Notes on FBI/Twitter Story: Link to Text Version of Twitter Files Thread Kmccook (talk) 20:32, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Kmccook (talk) 20:32, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Some may recall a decade ago when Fox News became The Benghazi Channel, featuring a ceaseless parade of Republican members of Congress and pundits for two years of wall-to-wall coverage of the greatest scandal of our time, while patting themselves on the back for being the only outlet covering it while the MSM was ignoring it to cover up for Obama and HRC, but five Republican-controlled House committees investigated and found no scandal, but because Fox News told viewers it was the greatest scandal of our time, a sixth Select Benghazi Committee was demanded and it found...nothing. Which is what the MSM knew from the start, so that's why they ignored it after the initial independent commission report came out. And Kevin McCarthy admitted the Select Committee was created to drive down HRC's poll ratings going into the 2016 campaign. This is instructive as to why we need to be very careful with our sourcing here. soibangla (talk) 21:27, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Kmccook, I agree that interested people should read the actual files, and that's why we do provide links to them in the infobox. The External links section is a place we often do this, as long as the primary source does not violate WP:ELNO.

You boldly declare that you "cited the files rather than a secondary source" even though you know "Wikipedia rules forbid this." Don't deliberately violate our policies and guidelines. That's tendentious editing. Don't even "not like" those policies. Bring your thinking into line with them and like them.

You are right that "There shouldn't be a side" when it comes to Wikipedia. We don't take sides when there is a disagreement between various RS, but we do take the side of RS when they disagree with unreliable sources. That is firmly based on policy. We are a reality-based and factually-based mainstream encyclopedia. We are not Conservapedia or some type of Fringeopedia. This is where editors who listen to unreliable sources get into trouble.

RS have more due weight, so a properly-written article will clearly show that what RS say is more believeable than those sources that/who are unreliable, and that will be evident from the words of RS themselves, not from any OR input from editors. (That really upsets partisan visitors/editors. They don't like it when we document that RS say "false" or "without basis.") Sources, not editors, are taking sides. We just stay neutral and let RS speak more loudly, per due weight. We do not try to create a false balance, as that would be an NPOV violation. ("Neutral" does not mean both sides are presented as equal.) This means we do document the disagreement between the primary source people/tweets and the reliable sources that point out the logical flaws and evidentiary lacks for some of the charges made by Musk, his group, and their allied right-wing political actors. I have written an essay about how to neutrally present what biased sources say: NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:34, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Kmccook and Valjean: and all contributors :) I found those three better sources below in bold. Which published articles about the author, Taibbi, who wrote that 80 FBI agents are working with Twitter.

Three sources:

1. Yahoo! News: "Comer Calls for FBI to Be ‘Dismantled’ following Latest ‘Twitter Files’ Revelations"

• Extract 1: "The FBI formed a task force of 80 agents to specialize in social media after the 2016 election. This team worked with Twitter to weed out alleged election meddling by foreign actors."
• Extract 2: "“But what we found today is the FBI had its own ministry of propaganda — 80 FBI agents dedicated to nothing but censoring free speech on the internet,” he said. “Eighty!"
• According to Wikipedia, Yahoo! News is both a notable and reliable source. Also, they curate the articles they choose for publication.
• Archived URL 1: https://archive.md/NmFyc#selection-810.0-810.2
• Archived URL 2: https://archive.md/NmFyc#selection-846.0-846.1
• URL: https://news.yahoo.com/comer-calls-fbi-dismantled-following-143814823.html

2. MSN: "FBI 'told Twitter to take action over jokes it flagged as misinformation'"

• Extract: "Taibbi has been tracking FBI activity for several years. He revealed that the FBI created a social media-focused task force six years ago known as FTIF, which grew to 80 agents and corresponded with Twitter to identify alleged foreign influence and election tampering of all kinds."
• According to Wikipedia, MSN news are curated by Microsoft
• The publisher HullLive is owned by Reach plc. Which is one of Britain's biggest and notable newspaper groups.
• Archived URL: https://archive.md/76PTG#selection-808.0-808.1
• URL: https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/technology/fbi-told-twitter-to-take-action-over-jokes-it-flagged-as-misinformation/ar-AA15qF8u

3. The Jewish Voice: "Twitter Files: FBI Kept Busy Censoring Conservatives Instead of Chasing Crooks"

• Extract: "This task force, wrote Taibbi, “swelled to 80 agents and corresponded with Twitter to identify alleged foreign influence and election tampering of all kinds.”"
• The publisher, The Jewish Voice, has an experienced editorial staff
• Like Twitter, the publisher is located in NYC. The Jewish Voice publication is considered one of the most influential in New York Jewish circles.
• Archived URL: https://archive.md/Bu1o4#selection-7018.0-7018.1
• URL: https://thejewishvoice.com/2022/12/twitter-files-fbi-kept-busy-censoring-conservatives-instead-of-chasing-crooks/

Francewhoa (talk) 02:46, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

No dice. The second one is the Daily Mirror, the first is National Review, and the third is Breitbart. Andre🚐 03:57, 27 December 2022 (UTC) [corrected Andre🚐 04:03, 27 December 2022 (UTC)]

Kmccook, here are are some policy considerations:

• As noted above, Fox and JTN are not to be used for this type of subject. (JTN was started by John Solomon (political commentator), so we're dealing with a very biased political agenda website like Newsmax, The Daily Caller, or Breitbart. They are simply a very poor source.)
• Tweets are not RS. They are self-published primary sources. (To make things even worse, in this case, the whole project is fraught with selection bias created by the involvement of very politically biased people like Musk and the three people he has selected to present the project. They have no interest in telling the whole story or being fair.)
• Only secondary RS can be used as they indicate which of the used tweets have due weight for mention. (We are not documenting every tweet they use. Independent RS make the choice for us.)
• Tweets are self-published primary sources that cannot be used "alone" as a source, only as presented/quoted by a RS, and then using the RS as the reference.
• Taibbi's Substack is a self-published primary source, so it is only usable for info about himself and his POV in his own bio. (That's based on BLP and PRIMARY.) Only other sources can establish the content has due weight for mention here. Use RSes that document the event, its content, and their views on it.
• To avoid OR and SYNTH violations, the RS should also be discussing the tweets in the context of the Twitter Files.

There are probably more considerations (like BLP), but that's all for now. Carry on. Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:40, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

• The issue of how to apply Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines to independently published media like Substacks is certainly a thorny one, and one that I expect is only going to become more important as the months and years progress. However, I don't think we are quite prepared to rip up WP:RS, at least not here and now over this specific thing. Perhaps (and, I think, almost certainly) the day will come when we have no choice, and then we will have to reconsider a lot of things we thought we knew. But until then, I think we have to make do with what we have (and it is worth mentioning that what we have isn't that bad in the larger scheme of things). jp×g 04:37, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Our policies are pretty good. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:34, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Related new information from today December 19th, 2022. According to Twitter Files installment #7 "As of 2020, there were so many former FBI employees — "Bu alumni" — working at Twitter that they had created their own private Slack channel and a crib sheet to onboard new FBI arrivals."

Sources:

• Original Tweet: https://twitter.com/ShellenbergerMD/status/1604895371360374784
• Arguably reliable sources for article:

• https://townhall.com/tipsheet/spencerbrown/2022/12/19/twitter-files-7-n2617303

The author, Spencer Brown, is the managing editor for Townhall. Would this qualify as a news or an opinion?

• https://nypost.com/2022/12/19/fbi-reached-out-to-twitter-before-post-broke-hunter-biden-laptop-story/

As you know, the NYP is central to the Twitter Files. As they first published the news about the Hunter Biden laptop. Which, according to many, turned out to be 100% fact based news and not an hack-and-dump. So in the case of the Twitter File, it might be appropriate to use the NYP. The author, Jesse O’Neill is "an experienced journalist who covers metro, national and international stories for The Post across an array of subjects including breaking news, public affairs and pop culture."

• https://www.foxnews.com/media/twitter-files-part-7-fbi-doj-discredited-information-about-hunter-bidens-foreign-business-dealings

• Not reliable sources for article:

• https://redstate.com/streiff/2022/12/19/are-the-social-media-giants-corporations-or-just-an-arm-of-the-federal-government-n675916
• https://dailycaller.com/2022/12/19/hunter-laptop-training-scenario-aspen/

• To faciliate discussion on this Talk page, here are archived direct links:

• https://nitter.lacontrevoie.fr/ShellenbergerMD/status/1604895371360374784#m
• https://archive.md/22IHF#selection-9676.0-9750.0

• Full thread: https://twitter.com/ShellenbergerMD/status/1604871630613753856

Francewhoa (talk) 03:01, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Need a reliable source that is not the original tweet. Slywriter (talk) 03:15, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

or a copy of the original tweet. Need a reliable secondary source discussing the tweet. Nothing above is usable by editors as it would be original research. Slywriter (talk) 03:35, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution @Slywriter: :) Done I added those 5 sources to my comment above. Any volunteer to find better source(s)?

Francewhoa (talk) 04:54, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

FoxNews and NYPost would need strong consensus to include as they are not highly regarded sources for American politics. Townhall seems to lack any policies on there website that would help establish them as a reliable source and that looks like an opinion piece not a column anyway. The non-reliable are obviously useless and no idea why bother to include them as they do not help. Slywriter (talk) 05:16, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Why treat "Fox News" like some monolith. Obviously content coming from Bret Baier is more reliable and newsworthy than the evening opinion lineup. 107.77.230.218 (talk) 17:57, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Francewhoa, if we had asked you for a list of sources universally considered unreliable (especially at Wikipedia), you couldn't have provided a better (short) list. I'm surprised you'd do that. Please find mainstream RS, not conspiracy and propaganda websites. We can't use any of them, and shouldn't even be reading them. Only experienced researchers who know the issues and can immediately recognize misinformation (because they have already studied what all RS have said) should look at them for strictly research purposes ("What are the misinfo/disinfo liars saying today?"). -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:37, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply @Valjean: :) About Taibbi's statement that 80 FBI agents are working with Twitter. Are you interested to suggest any notable and reliable source(s)? Francewhoa (talk) 01:34, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Francewhoa. I have a list at a little-known essay here. (It hasn't been updated in a long time.) -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:23, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your essay @Valjean: :). Interesting read. I bookmarked it. Francewhoa (talk) 02:45, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

• There are a rather large number of seriously poor sources quoted here. It looks like the use of these poor sources are because good sources don’t say what some folks would like. But, that’s exactly why we use good sources. That is, sources we have found to be reliable as opposed to saying what we personally desire. I have not read the files and won’t because I don’t perform original research. Besides, the person releasing them has a very heavy bias super-hyping what he has released and I don’t know what might be missing. The entire Hunter Biden laptop release seems quite absurd. It appears that Twitter originally blocked tweets that it believed violated its rules and after further consideration quickly reversed the decision. This is going to happen as there are edge cases in forum rules, particularly in cases of possible slander. We have such debates on WP:BLP articles. Spinning this into some sort of deep state conspiracy without evidence, as have some poor sources, is nutso. (Frankly, I think the entire Hunter Biden laptop obsession is ridiculous. AFAIK, the guy has never had or sought any elected position. And Fox is calling it Watergate 2.0.) This discussion would be more fruitful if the posting of bad sources ceased as it disrupts the conversation . O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:41, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

These are all unreliable in this context. Andre🚐 04:01, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Excuse me, but there is nothing remotely resembling an expert consensus on the significance of the Twitter Files dumps, particularly considering that the matter is still unfolding. Therefore, presenting the opinion that "Elon Musk's build-up prior to the release was disproportionate with the overall lower level of significance of the revelations" as fact is pure editorialization and in conflict with Npov policy which reads "...representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias". This line should be removed. Trueitagain (talk) 04:15, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

WP:BLUDGEON O3000, Ret. (talk) 04:18, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

I did not reference NPOV policy in my original argument. This issue hasn't actually been discussed. It has yet to be demonstrated that this is not an opinion, therefore is a violation of NPOV. Do you have an actual argument? At least two other editors agreed with my edit. Trueitagain (talk) 04:36, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Not only is that paraphrasing of a RS accurate in itself, it is echoed by others under Reactions. Seb Gorka was underwhelmed. soibangla (talk) 04:21, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

And then the next three sentences go on to describe multiple parties who believe the contents of the files are significant. Including government officials. CNN does not have the authority to dictate that this is insignificant. The low importance categorization of this page is also out of line when elected representatives are alleging first amendment abuse. I'd like to remind you that this is a developing story. Trueitagain (talk) 04:45, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. You should make this change. jrn-hsv 04:23, 26 December 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason.r.newell (talk • contribs)

Subjective reactions are completely subjective, especially as a function of mainstream media. Of course they're going to downplay it. One person's opinion should not dictate the inclusion of this obviously-not-neutral statement jrn-hsv 04:24, 26 December 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason.r.newell (talk • contribs)

Subjective reactions are especially not as a function of mainstream media, which are large organizations with armies of editors to scrutinize everything before it is published, which is not the same as with, say, Matt Taibbi.

Twitter's own data appears to show that the story fell flat. But I can guess the motivations of some who might want it to appear like a viral sensation that's sweeping the nation. soibangla (talk) 04:42, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

If your source is your self-admittedly questionable link, then this is starting to sound like Wikipedia:No original research Trueitagain (talk) 04:47, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

"self-admittedly questionable" is inaccurate soibangla (talk) 04:53, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

"Just an aside: I cannot vouch for this site" Trueitagain (talk) 19:40, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Wow, you're serious, aren't you? Subjective means it's not quantifiable. Quantifiable = "objective". See Brown-Gibson for reference on this topic. Mainstream media is in the business of attempting to quantify something especially subjective such as a person's reaction to stimuli. They're not especially good at it because they're not clinical psychologists who make a living doing this (plus they're not good at math or statistics). Anyway, I think you agree one person's reaction is not necessarily quantifiable to, nor effectively measured against another person's, hence the need for that statement to not be there. Thank you:) jrn-hsv 04:50, 26 December 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason.r.newell (talk • contribs)

(Edit conflict) Personally, I think we could add some kind of attribution such as "Many commentators claimed..." to that sentence to address the concern here and also to make the sentence read better (it reads a bit oddly to me.) That said, I do think it's self-evidently true that Musk wildly overhyped the Twitter files. Many conservatives said this as well. Wise and Beautiful Editor (talk) 04:52, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Or perhaps state multiple takes? I've read both "underwhelming" and "concerning", especially regarding government meddling. jrn-hsv 04:57, 26 December 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason.r.newell (talk • contribs)

Flibbertigibbets, the contents were presented with commentary in the Twitter equivalent of a PowerPoint slide show. A presentation. "Released" sounds like a mere dump doc, to me anyway. soibangla (talk) 15:18, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the note in talk.. I very much appreciate it. (it may be just a difference in semantics - see links below)

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/elon-musk-promotes-release-internal-twitter-documents-rehashing-platfo-rcna59897

https://www.themainewire.com/2022/12/twitter-files-musk-releases-internal-documents-on-censorship-of-ny-posts-hunter-scoop/

I was looking at it strictly from "readability" "as a reader the first sentence was not clear or concise to me"

How the documents were released might be a good thing to place in the body.

Flibbertigibbets (talk) 15:27, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

I also removed "two ands" and replaced with a comma. There may not be anything grammatically wrong (against the rules) in placing "two ands" in a sentence but it detracts from readability and conciseness especially in a first sentence. The first sentence of a well written article would be "the concise conclusion" Flibbertigibbets (talk) 15:45, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

added "presented" in the second sentence of the lead.. (per concern and input above) Flibbertigibbets (talk) 15:51, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

content moderation might be the current term; but censoring, Censorship, might be an appropriate word to use as that is being alleged through the release. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 15:58, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

I have created a draft for David Zweig. Any help would be appreciated. Thriley (talk) 20:44, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

The link in the lead to David Zweig pointed to a general page on the Atlantic (with a David Zweig link being appropriate) - I see that he tweeted today on the subject of "The Twitter Files." Was he involved in the original release of the information?; which is what the lead currently suggests. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 21:38, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi, when I saw David Zweig had released installment ten, I added a link to his website to identify him. This was reverted. There is no way to explain what he did because nothing can be cited from the sources that report that he did it. This is because they are not reliable sources as was noted in the edit summary when I had added a citation to a National Review article which was reverted: Mill, Ryan. (December 26, 2022). "Twitter Files: Platform Suppressed Valid Information from Medical Experts about Covid-19." National Review.Kmccook (talk) 22:31, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Assuming RS haven't all tired of reporting on the accusations du jour in tweets, something will be reported. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:39, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

There is more than mere accusations in these dumps, i.e. evidence. Trueitagain (talk) 02:16, 27 December 2022 (UTC)