Talk : Twitter Files/Archive 6

Part 1, December 2, 2022 Thread: THE TWITTER FILES
- Supplemental, December 6, 2022 THREAD: Twitter Files Supplemental

Part 2, December 8, 2022 THREAD: THE TWITTER FILES PART TWO. TWITTER'S SECRET BLACKLISTS.

Part 3, December 9, 2022 THREAD: The Twitter Files THE REMOVAL OF DONALD TRUMP Part One: October 2020-January 6th

Part 4, December 10, 2022 TWITTER FILES, PART 4 The Removal of Donald Trump: January 7

Part 5, December 12, 2022 THREAD: THE TWITTER FILES PART FIVE. THE REMOVAL OF TRUMP FROM TWITTER.

Part 6, December 16, 2022 THREAD: The Twitter Files, Part Six TWITTER, THE FBI SUBSIDIARY
- Supplemental, December 18, 2022 THREAD: Twitter Files Supplemental

Part 7, December 19, 2022 TWITTER FILES: PART 7 The FBI & the Hunter Biden Laptop

Lee Fang

Part 8, December 20, 2022 TWITTER FILES PART 8 *How Twitter Quietly Aided the Pentagon’s Covert Online PsyOp Campaign*

Part 9, December 24, 2022 THREAD: The Twitter Files TWITTER AND "OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCIES"

David Zweig

Part 10, December 26, 2022 THREAD: THE TWITTER FILES: HOW TWITTER RIGGED THE COVID DEBATE

SHORTENED VERSION

Original tweets:

Part 1, December 2, 2022 THE TWITTER FILES
- Supplemental, December 6, 2022 Supplemental

Part 2, December 8, 2022 TWITTER'S SECRET BLACKLISTS.

Part 3, December 9, 2022 THE REMOVAL OF DONALD TRUMP Part One: October 2020-January 6th

Part 4, December 10, 2022 The Removal of Donald Trump: January 7

Part 5, December 12, 2022 THE REMOVAL OF TRUMP FROM TWITTER.

Part 6, December 16, 2022 TWITTER, THE FBI SUBSIDIARY
- Supplemental, December 18, 2022 Supplemental

Part 7, December 19, 2022 The FBI & the Hunter Biden Laptop

Lee Fang

Part 8, December 20, 2022 How Twitter Quietly Aided the Pentagon's Covert Online PsyOp Campaign

Part 9, December 24, 2022 TWITTER AND "OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCIES"

David Zweig

Part 10, December 26, 2022 HOW TWITTER RIGGED THE COVID DEBATE

Please try to improve this. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@Valjean: what are you asking for here? Are you saving these for the record, or are you hoping to include these in the article? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:58, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Jtbobways, I was just experimenting with our barebones current EL section, hoping for input. I think it's too uninformative now. Maybe we should make it a section called "Twitter Files TOC" rather than the current EL. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:59, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Should the reporters' names be repeated with duplicate links like that? Or should they be more like headings:

Part 1
- Supplemental
Part 3
Part 6
- Supplemental
Part 9

Part 2
Part 5

https://www.foxnews.com/media/twitter-files-part-11-shows-pr-crisis-following-2016-election

Part 4
Part 7

etc. 70.163.208.142 (talk) 02:07, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

The new table format is a vast improvement from using external links. Thank you for this effort. (sorry if commenting in this fashion isn't the stock way of doing this, I am new here.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.251.125.121 (talk) 14:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

You are very welcome. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:34, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Part 11

Stop citing unreliable sources

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Today's drop showcases how the Democrats' false claims of Russian interference in the 2016 election led Twitter on its path to which it eventually partnered with US government operatives to censor and suppress accounts, including the Hunter Biden story. 152.130.1.17 (talk) 22:17, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Umm, the Russians did interfere with the 2016 election. See Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:21, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Umm, the twitter thread made it very clear that Twitter was quite concerned that they couldn't find anything of consequence, and the feds were putting them under enormous pressure to produce a big list of Russian-y things they would ban. Eventually Twitter instituted a policy of just taking the lists from the FBI et al and acting on them. The feds began to pay them for all the time it was taking them. Read the thread. MikeR613 (talk) 23:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

The FBI warned them of Russian attempts at interfering with the election. They separately asked for info needed for investigations, as they do regularly from communications companies. They paid them for their time because the law demands that they do this. Please do not use Fox as a source or cherry-picked files. It is well documented that the Russians did interfere with the 2016 election, and elections in other countries as well. "False claims of Russian interference" is ridiculous. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Twitter's release (if covered in RS) is due for inclusion on this. We are not going to debate Russian interference here, go over to the main article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:00, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

One of the key details in batch 11 is that Adam Schiff tried to get Twitter to ban and/or censor certain journalists from the platform that he disagreed with. https://www.foxnews.com/media/adam-schiff-dragged-after-twitter-files-shows-he-asked-site-suspend-journo-expel-schiff-from-congress 152.130.11.17 (talk) 19:04, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Matt Taibbi just said, "The government was in the censorship business on Twitter in a huge way." Since several editors previously insisted that a misquote of his about the government was "not involved" in Twitter be featured prominently in the lede, I think we should definitely include this new quote of his in the lede. Here's the source: https://www.foxnews.com/media/twitter-files-publisher-government-in-censorship-business-huge-way . BTW, FoxNews is a reliable source according to Wikipedia policy. Whoever tried to censor this discussion needs some corrective action from Wikipedia's admins. 152.130.9.9 (talk) 13:59, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

BTW, in that interview with Taibbi, he says that Wikipedia was involved in meetings with government censors. So, how many of the editors in political articles on this site were working with government censors? 152.130.9.9 (talk) 14:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Statement from Wikipedia's editors as an FAQ

Proposal

Due to the unusual nature of the release and presentation of the Twitter Files, I see a need for an official consensus statement from our editors, akin to what one often sees from the editors at a newspaper of record like The New York Times and The Washington Post.

This is a first draft, and I expect discussion and improvement. It might be good if it is collapsible.

Due to the highly unusual nature of the release and presentation of the Twitter Files using Twitter, a primary source without any editorial oversight, editors at Wikipedia have decided to issue an official consensus statement regarding their editorial process. Many people have complained about how this article is presented, and readers deserve an explanation.

Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (PAG) govern how editors develop articles. We are not at liberty to insert our own points of view or otherwise unduly and personally influence the neutral presentation of the facts and often biased opinions found in the reliable sources (RS) we use to develop articles. This article presents a unique situation that has tested the limits of how far our PAG can be bent and still maintain the integrity of our editorial process and the reputation of Wikipedia.
Wikipedia has rules about the use of primary, secondary, and tertiary sources that forbid any original research by editors, and Twitter is definitely not a RS:

Twitter is a social network. As a self-published source, it is considered generally unreliable and should be avoided unless the author is a subject-matter expert or the tweet is used for an uncontroversial self-description. In most cases, Twitter accounts should only be cited if they are verified accounts or if the user's identity is confirmed in some way. Tweets that are not covered by reliable sources are likely to constitute undue weight. Twitter should never be used for third-party claims related to living persons.

With rare exception, we cannot quote directly from primary sources like the tweets, Elon Musk, or those he chose to present the Twitter Files. ~~They are presenting their own cherry-picked tweets and adding their own, often very biased, commentary, sometimes at odds with the facts. They are thus considered somewhat unreliable narrators.~~ They are presenting tweets they select and adding their own commentary. Therefore, we can only document the original presentation at Twitter, or at their own websites, in the context of them being cited or quoted by independent, secondary or tertiary, reliable sources (PSTS), and then we are quoting those sources.
Content in our articles is always based on such PST sources, and we link directly to them. In this case, even linking directly to the original tweets and commentary is problematic, even in the "External links" (EL) section. They are the type of original sources considered "links normally to be avoided" in that section and as sources in an article. We have chosen to make an exception as a service to our readers and provide a table with links.
While Wikipedia's co-founder, Jimmy Wales, wrote the following about practitioners of pseudoscientific, alternative medical nonsense, it can also be applied to our sourcing PAG:

Wikipedia's policies around this kind of thing are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals—that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately."^[1]

If Elon Musk had chosen to release the Twitter Files through a trusted and reliable newspaper of record, using ~~experienced~~ journalists with a reputation for editorial neutrality and accountability, we would not be in this situation. Journalists at such sources follow normal journalistic ethical practices and are subject to editorial oversight. They are generally seen as more trustworthy than anyone, even noted independent journalists who issue their own views on their own independent blogs and websites. Wikipedia cannot use such private sources but can use what is published at an official RS.
Quoting Wales, editors here respond to Musk and "activists who want new rules for Wikipedia" with a firm "No, you have to be kidding me."^[1] If you want your views published on Wikipedia, use independent reliable sources, not your own website or social media, especially Twitter.

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Two suggestions.

Shorten this sentence: "They are presenting their own cherry-picked tweets and adding their own, often very biased, commentary, sometimes at odds with the facts. They are thus considered somewhat unreliable narrators." to this: They are presenting tweets they select and adding their own commentary.

Delete the word "experienced" in this sentence: "If Elon Musk had chosen to release the Twitter Files through a trusted and reliable newspaper of record, using experienced journalists with a reputation for editorial neutrality and accountability, we would not be in this situation." The Twitter Files journalists are experienced. Kmccook (talk) 03:05, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the good suggestions. I appreciate this, as I am not suggesting we use my version with no changes. I'd like to see it improved until there is a consensus version, exactly as we do with the text found in any FAQ. Then we could post it at the top of this page as an FAQ, as suggested.

There are three journalists and two authors. They have very different ethical guidelines and experiences. ~~Taibbi is no longer a respected journalist, but one with a very tarnished reputation specifically for grossly violating journalistic ethics.~~ Bari is very partisan. I don't know about the others. Regardless, more neutral wording is desirable.

I have now included your suggestions. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:42, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

This sentence--"Therefore, we can only document the original presentation at Twitter, or at their own websites, in the context of them being cited or quoted by independent, secondary or tertiary, reliable sources (PSTS), and then we are quoting those sources"-- might confuse readers and I'm not sure how to untangle. Two have their own websites at Substack (TK News and Michael Shellenberger); Three write at only one Substack, The Free Press, which is edited by Weiss (Weiss, Fang and Zweig). Articles expanding on the Twitter Files have appeared at all three Substacks under bylines but so far these are only at three different Substacks.

I 100% understand what you mean but want to think about how to make it clearer that Weiss, Fang and Zweig are all at one Substack which is now laid out differently than TK News or Michael Shellenberger. Kmccook (talk) 05:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

References

^ ^a ^b Geuss, Megan (March 25, 2014). "Wikipedia founder calls alt-medicine practitioners "lunatic charlatans"". Ars Technica. Retrieved January 5, 2023. Wikipedia's policies around this kind of thing are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals—that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately. What we won't do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of 'true scientific discourse.' It isn't.

Discussion (about using this as an FAQ on this talk page)

This is well-meaning, but Wikipedians are not a monolith and not a "newspaper of record". I think we can continue to handle this one response at a time, as we have at 2000 Mules, Trump/Russia-related articles, Stop the Steal, and so forth. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:46, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
- Muboshgu, we have FAQ on many articles, so why not here? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:42, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
  An FAQ is short bullet point or single sentence answers to questions. This strays from that style. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Absolutely not. This is not Wikipedia's place, and it should never be. Mehrpw (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
- Why not? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:51, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
  We are meant to be an encyclopedia which summarises the information that gets published in reliable sources. We're not here to author declarative statements of opinion about current events and the people involved in them. Endwise (talk) 03:07, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
  - This is about explaining the editorial considerations used to craft this article. I have summarized the discussions on the page and our PAG. I expect it to be revised before it can be used as a consensus statement in an FAQ at the top of this page. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:42, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
  - I don't see this as statements of opinion about current events and the people involved, but rather an explanation of why we are restricted by RSP policy in what sources we can use, for the benefit of those who don't understand the policies and thus conclude we're being biased; we've had to explain this a few times, and that can be somewhat frustrating. That said, I'm inclined to agree with Muboshgu. soibangla (talk) 05:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Personally I do endorse Valjean's statement, and I'd support putting it in an FAQ. A similar action was taken on the recession article. In fact several highly unorthodox actions were taken on that article. A big article header was added leading to an FAQ. The article text was also modified despite an RFC that should have theoretically led to the article text being frozen at status quo ante. Andre🚐 23:15, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
- ~~Use as part of the FAQ is also a good option.~~ (I thought we already had one, so this would be the FAQ.) Any improvements should still be made, and this section is also for that purpose. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

No. We have no reason at all do this, and a hell of a lot of reason not to. For instance, saying the journalists involved are presenting their own cherry-picked tweets and adding their own, often very biased, commentary, sometimes at odds with the facts, and saying that they are the opposite of experienced journalists with a reputation for editorial neutrality and accountability, is extremely polemic. There is absolutely no reason at all to present Wikipedia editors as a monolith who all hold such beliefs about the journalists in question. Why on Earth would we want to do that? Endwise (talk) 03:03, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- See my reply to Kmccook above. You have partially misunderstood my intentions. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
  - There are three journalists and two authors. They have very different ethical guidelines and experience. ~~Taibbi is no longer a respected journalist, but one with a very tarnished reputation specifically for grossly violating journalistic ethics.~~ Bari is very partisan. I don't know about the others. I have developed this based on our discussions on this page and on our PAG. Instead of prejudging it, why not improve it? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:42, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely not Clear and obvious WP:SOAP violation. We are here to cover the news, not make it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:44, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

No but I think a FAQ has merit. However, it should restrict itself to Wikipedia policies and guidelines without mention of the journalists, Elon Musk, or the outside world. That would also include removing the Jimbo quote as comparing this to Alternative medicine is making a judgement that goes beyond what editors should do. Slywriter (talk) 05:19, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- How did you manage to miss the point there? "If you want your views published on Wikipedia, use independent reliable sources, not your own website or social media, especially Twitter." That's a concept from policy. We depend on secondary, not primary, sources. Sure, we can excise the Jimbo quote, but don't miss the point. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:33, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Comment. I have no objections to this being revised radically. That's why I posted it here. So please stop the nastiness and attacks. Feel free to split this up into an itemized FAQ format. (Sheesh, one would think I was a troll or criminal. Some here are treating me that way. It's uncalled for.) -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:38, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- Perhaps skip telling people they are missing the point next time when they are writing as neutral and gentle an oppositon statement that can be written about a FAQ proposal that needs substantial work to have a chance at consensus. Slywriter (talk) 05:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
  Slywriter, I think you commented twice above. And both of you, I think you are the best people to work together to draft an agreeable FAQ. Either using this one as a starting point or writing a new one together. Maybe Slywriter wants to draft his idea of a fair or neutral FAQ. Or go ahead and boldly edit this one. Andre🚐 05:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
  - Slywriter, I apologize for my reaction above. I welcome any good faith attempt to utilize even just some of the ideas I presented. I expected this to be a collaborative brainstorming session. Please work in that direction, as suggested by Andrevan. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Oppose posting this as some kind of statement by Wikipedia editors. a primary source without any editorial oversight Do you know if this is even true? Weiss employs an editorial staff and I bet some of them looked through her work before she posted it. Fang posted his work on a reliable source. an official consensus statement Consensus can change. A reliable source could publish something regarding the Twitter Files that validates all of the Twitter releases, and then we would just look stupid. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (PAG) govern how editors develop articles. This is all that needs to be said to people coming here to complain about the article. They are presenting tweets they select and adding their own commentary. This is standard journalism. In this case, even linking directly to the original tweets and commentary is problematic, even in the "External links" (EL) section. I don't agree with this at all. It is publicly available information with millions of views - there's no point trying to hide it. While Wikipedia's co-founder, Jimmy Wales, wrote the following about practitioners of pseudoscientific, alternative medical nonsense, it can also be applied to our sourcing PAG Wales was talking about scientific topics and how we don't platform pseudoscience. The topic here is reporting, and we use reporting as a source all over Wikipedia. using experienced journalists with a reputation for editorial neutrality and accountability, we would not be in this situation Taibbi, Weiss, and Fang are experienced journalists, who have all worked for many years for reliable sources such as Rolling Stone, WSJ, NYT, and The Intercept (Fang's piece of the Twitter Files was posted on The Intercept's website), which have reputations for "editorial neutrality and accountability". This type of "statement" is nowhere near the scope of what Wikipedia editors should be releasing or agreeing to. This would need a site wide RFC and the blessing of the WMF to even begin to attempt. A short FAQ linked to Wikipedia's policies may be relevant. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:12, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Rolling Stone isn't a reliable source Andre🚐 17:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
It certainly was when Taibbi worked there. It is still considered a reliable source for culture matters here. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:54, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
I wouldn't be fast to associate RS's downgrade with Matt's departure. soibangla (talk) 19:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm not trying to do that. I'm trying to make the point that Taibbi, Weiss, and Fang are not newbies nor random people, but would know what it's like working for reputable / reliable sources. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
And they couldn't hack it under editorial oversight, so they went independent. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
I don't think that's accurate. Fang currently works for the Intercept. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:31, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
"Not hacking it under editorial oversight" is open to interpretation. Writers often leave organizations for reasons that are rational. Kmccook (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
@Valjean and Andrevan:, I can flesh something more substantial later but let's look at the three questions commonly asked by New editors and IPs.

Why is Rolling Stone, FoxNews, NewsMax....(further right) not an acceptable source?
Why doesn't Wikipedia just reprint exactly what the Twitter files claim? / Why isn't Twitter a reliable source?
Why is Wikipedia censoring the Twitter files and hiding government censorship?

I think we can draft reasonable police based answers to those questions. As well as tighten up language to be as neutral and inoffebsive as possible. We don't want the FAQ to discourage good-faith editing. Feel free to add other questions I may have missed and let me know if think on right track before I build out further. Slywriter (talk) 15:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

to the extent we proceed with this, and I'm not persuaded we should, I agree with the Slywriter approach. soibangla (talk) 17:33, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

We are not the police, dont get confused. If the user wants to read about policy (in case it was a Freudian slip) then they can always go to the policy pages or the talk pages. There is no need to do anything unique on this particular article, it is not any more special than any other article. In fact a year from now, probably nobody even cares this article. It is one of these 'event in time' articles that dont get much long term attention (my prediction and nothing more). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:06, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't know, House Republican investigations might keep it fresh. Also, any future mention from Musk will get a lot of eyes. Regarding the faq, some articles lend themselves more to a reminder of policy. I think the Twitter Files are special in a way, in that they are (currently) covered primarily by a source that is considered reliable in some situations, but not here (WP:FOXNEWS). That's a specific policy a faq could more quickly clarify. 70.163.208.142 (talk) 10:22, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, purpose of a FAQ would be to direct new editors to relevant policy, as well as readers who come to the talk page to express concern or an opinion. On that note, WP:NOTFORUM would be another FAQ point. Slywriter (talk) 13:30, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Are you proposing to link to all of the wikipedia policies, or just the ones you think are relevant? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:12, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Care to explain that statement? Slywriter (talk) 03:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Although limited, fox news can be used for non controversial facts in politics.

But I agree that a faq section should look like a faq section and have a firm basis in policy, preferably using the exact relevant text, word for word.

Something like

Q Why is...

A Because...

Q...

A... Amthisguy (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Alex Berenson

I see that User:Kmccook has added author and former reporter Alex Berenson with this edit.

I have found This as the first of four tweets. Are we sure this is official? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:25, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's all I see as well but then Berenson seemed to switch over to his Substack for the rest of #13 (that I didn't want to cite). Musk's Twitter Feed indicates it is the next installment. Kmccook (talk) 22:36, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I see that Berenson has a huge COI in this matter:

"At the same time, Gottlieb was also pressing Twitter to act against me, as I disclosed on Substack on Oct. 13, 2022, drawing on documents that Twitter’s pre-Musk regime provided to me as part of my lawsuit against it. (Gottlieb’s action was part of a larger conspiracy that included the Biden White House and Andrew Slavitt, working publicly and privately to pressure Twitter until it had no choice but to ban me. I will have more to say about my own case and will be suing the White House, Slavitt, Gottlieb, and Pfizer shortly.)"[1]

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:34, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Agree. But it is #13 and if people look at Berenson link this should be clear. Maybe add something to Berenson's page that so indicates? This is the first one of the files that seems to have a COI. Kmccook (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

None of this crap belongs in an encyclopedia. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:42, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't work that way here, unless you mean we should wait for secondary reliable sources to first mention it. So far all the worst sources mention it, with Fox News being the only major source. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:57, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

That would be nice -- and what we do. Right now, it looks like we are a repository for edited documents. Cherry-picked docs are edited docs. The context has been removed. “Separate text from context and all that remains is a con.” O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:04, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Chuckle! I luv it! Musk really shows enormous carelessness with how he's doing this. He has agendas for doing this. He also shows no interest in choosing quality, independent journalists, without their own axe to grind, to do this. It's a clusterfuck. We are not the repository, but Twitter and Substack are. We just document what RS say about the mess. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:10, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Kmccook, I think it should be restored, but with a neutral description of the topic matter. Something like "About Scott Gottlieb and Pfizer." -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

The Title is the Title. I didn't like it either, but it is the Title. But "About Scott Gotlieb and Pfizer" seems fine to me. Kmccook (talk) 23:26, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Reconsidering our linking to the original sources

I'm beginning to wonder if we should stop making an exception with our current practice of linking to the original sources. It seems to violate WP:ELNO. We could link to a major RS that does link to the original source in each case. What think ye? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:03, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Hear, hear!: Short for: “hear, all ye good people, hear what this brilliant and eloquent speaker has to say!” O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:09, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

We shouldn't have to link to Twitter, Substack, or other unreliable sources to do this. Let RS point to them. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:13, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

The RS won't link to them. This is like WikiLeaks or the Pentagon Papers. If we don't have the Table, then a reader will not have any resource to evaluate. Kmccook (talk) 23:21, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

That should tell you something. Line in the sand. We don't document what RS don't. If the readers want to evaluate edited tweet compilations, they can do that on Twitter, or StormFront, or wherever. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:35, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

It is getting unwieldy as the moat recent tangent by Bernstein does show we need some quality control. Looking at ELNO, I don't see an obvious fail condition though, since it arguably is a unique resource and the misinformation section (besides being debatable whether there's misinformation) carves out exception for viewpoints the site is presenting, which Twitter is. All that said, not opposed to a better way that doesn't look like we are encouraging readers to go the external links to get information Wikipedia can provide. Slywriter (talk) 23:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

RS are writing about the Twitter Files so links to them are valuable. None of the RS or even unreliables provide access to the entire set, so the Table is a worthwhile addition. Some here may have the opinion it is all "cr*p," but that is an opinion. Kmccook (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

We do not work for Musk (yet). When RS provide info, we will. WP:NODEADLINE O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:52, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Berenson flagged as "key source of COVID misinformation"

There are reasons we need to be careful how we deal with each release and their authors. Some have huge COIs and may be misusing their positions as authors of Twitter Files releases to push and defend their own agendas. This article should document RS commentary on such matters.

Sources we can use:

Berenson the "COVID skeptic tries to prove Twitter, Pfizer censorship in latest 'Twitter Files'".^[1]
"Twitter owner Elon Musk turned over access to internal company documents to a top source of vaccine misinformation who’s been giving out bunk public health advice for years, the latest in a far-right shift on one of the most influential social media sites in the world."^[2]
"Journalist Alex Berenson, a notorious COVID skeptic, released the latest files — mostly in a Substack post rather than in Twitter threads. Berenson gained notoriety in the first two years of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic for first routinely downplaying the seriousness of the virus and then the effectiveness of the vaccines."^[3]

Other sources:

(Apr. 1, 2021) "The Pandemic’s Wrongest Man. In a crowded field of wrongness, one person stands out: Alex Berenson."^[4]
(Dec. 21, 2021, but can be used to document that he sued Twitter) 'Pandemic's Wrongest Man' Alex Berenson Sues Twitter After Suspension^[5]
(Twitter) David Zweig used his Twitter Files release to comment on Berenson: "8. When the Biden admin took over, one of their first meeting requests with Twitter executives was on Covid. The focus was on “anti-vaxxer accounts.” Especially Alex Berenson"

We have enough here to write:

Berenson, who has been described as a COVID vaccine skeptic and "top source of vaccine misinformation"^[1]^[2]^[3] who sued Twitter after it suspended his account.^[5]

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:40, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Section started below. Content is copied there.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

We also need a section for such commentary about the authors. That context is important. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:40, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

It looks like all the authors so far, apart from David Zweig, have their own articles. While keeping WP:COATRACK, BLP, and WP:BALANCE in mind, has there been much coverage in RS as to the set of authors Musk has chosen to disseminate the files? It would be easier to justify a section about the background of the authors if reliable sources have been discussing their background in connection with the release of the files, doubly so if those authorial background pieces are both separate and indepth from their coverage of the releases themselves. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:55, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Fox News reported on Berenson's reporting of the Pfizer executive who was involved in censoring posts that were skeptical of the jabs: [2]. 152.130.15.15 (talk) 18:58, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Gottlieb pushed back against misinformation on Twitter, you mean. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:02, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

While that Fox News article does state that Berenson is a vocal COVID contrarian, that's not exactly what I meant. What would be most helpful for justifying a section on commentary of the authors would be articles from reliable sources that discuss the authors as a set. An article that investigates why Musk has chosen the authors he has, instead of giving the same data/level of access to someone or someones better known for investigative journalism. Something that reports specifically on the authors who are disseminating the information, instead of the content they are disseminating. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

References

^ ^a ^b Sinnenberg, Jackson (January 10, 2023). "COVID skeptic tries to prove Twitter, Pfizer censorship in latest 'Twitter Files'". The National Desk. Retrieved January 11, 2023.
^ ^a ^b Shuham, Matt (January 10, 2023). "Elon Musk Turns Over Twitter Records To Key Source Of COVID Misinformation". HuffPost. Retrieved January 11, 2023. Twitter owner Elon Musk turned over access to internal company documents to a top source of vaccine misinformation who's been giving out bunk public health advice for years, the latest in a far-right shift on one of the most influential social media sites in the world.
^ ^a ^b Smith, Jillian (January 10, 2023). "Twitter Files: Latest release claims platform suppressed tweets from COVID vaccine critics". The National Desk. Retrieved January 11, 2023. Journalist Alex Berenson, a notorious COVID skeptic, released the latest files — mostly in a Substack post rather than in Twitter threads. Berenson gained notoriety in the first two years of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic for first routinely downplaying the seriousness of the virus and then the effectiveness of the vaccines.
^ Thompson, Derek (April 1, 2021). "The Pandemic's Wrongest Man". The Atlantic. Retrieved January 11, 2023.
^ ^a ^b Slisco, Aila (December 21, 2021). "'Pandemic's Wrongest Man' Alex Berenson Sues Twitter After Suspension". Newsweek. Retrieved January 11, 2023.

Authors section

We need this context. We need a section with paragraphs for each one to identify them and their political biases on various issues. This has been mentioned above, so I am copying some comments from above as they are relevant here.

Previous comments

I see the value and the danger. We don't add Tucker Carlson or Alex Jones to every article about which they have made substantial input. This is a bit different. But, I think it would require enormous care unless we had multiple RS bring them all up in the manner you suggest. O3000, Ret. (talk) 02:42, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

You are right about this. Since we are not able to use their Substack posts as RS, the links to their Wikipedia pages in the lede provides information. Kmccook (talk) 02:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Misinformation is a subset of information. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:44, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

We also need a section for such commentary about the authors. That context is important. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:40, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

It looks like all the authors so far, apart from David Zweig, have their own articles. While keeping WP:COATRACK, BLP, and WP:BALANCE in mind, has there been much coverage in RS as to the set of authors Musk has chosen to disseminate the files? It would be easier to justify a section about the background of the authors if reliable sources have been discussing their background in connection with the release of the files, doubly so if those authorial background pieces are both separate and indepth from their coverage of the releases themselves. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:55, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Fox News reported on Berenson's reporting of the Pfizer executive who was involved in censoring posts that were skeptical of the jabs: [3]. 152.130.15.15 (talk) 18:58, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Gottlieb pushed back against misinformation on Twitter, you mean. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:02, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

While that Fox News article does state that Berenson is a vocal COVID contrarian, that's not exactly what I meant. What would be most helpful for justifying a section on commentary of the authors would be articles from reliable sources that discuss the authors as a set. An article that investigates why Musk has chosen the authors he has, instead of giving the same data/level of access to someone or someones better known for investigative journalism. Something that reports specifically on the authors who are disseminating the information, instead of the content they are disseminating. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

We have enough here to write:

Berenson, who has been described as a COVID vaccine skeptic and "top source of vaccine misinformation"^[1]^[2]^[3] who sued Twitter after it suspended his account.^[4]

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:40, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

The basis for a section

From the lead:

Starting in December 2022, by CEO Elon Musk, journalists Matt Taibbi, Bari Weiss, Lee Fang, and authors Michael Shellenberger, David Zweig and Alex Berenson shortly after Musk acquired Twitter on October 27, 2022. Taibbi and Weiss coordinated the release of the documents with Twitter management, releasing the details of the files as a series of Twitter threads.^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]

Let's try to create short sections for each author in the context of the Twitter Files.

Lee Fang