This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Hi! In case anyone here is interested, there's going to be a panel discussion on Congressional edits to Wikipedia, ways staffers can be helpful and good community members, and issues of notability, neutrality, and conflict of interest. The panel discussion will be in one of the House office buildings in Washington DC on August 18 and is open to the public. RSVP and read more about it here. Thanks! HistoricMN44 (talk) 13:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA torture
I question including this information. I'd assume that hundreds of staffers have access to these lines and that one or two edited Wikipedia does not seem of much importance to me. Gandydancer (talk) 16:01, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree, and have removed the section. For anyone who is interested, the diff is . Tiny edits made by a Congressional IP address that were quickly reverted are really of no lasting significance to the story of the report. We have other places for things like that (e.g. U.S. Congressional staff edits to Wikipedia). Dragons flight (talk) 17:04, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I was the one who added a section about it to this page (congressional edits); I didn't see anything on this talk page warning someone earlier not to, so I pulled a WP:BOLD. (I would have checked reliability better if I hadn't personally witnessed the event, but that's no excuse.) Dr. Fleischmanreverted with "mashable isn't a reliable source, per past WP:RSN discussions. Let this bubble up in the mainstream media before re-adding." That sounds fine to me. Thanks and sorry! FourViolas (talk) 23:46, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
User:EditsArticles added a ref to the Huffington Post (a source of contention, as I'd noticed and User:Flyer22 points out, on the WP:RSN). Flyer reinstated the material. I'd like to request that it be allowed to stay this time, by the following arguments:
It may be WP:IAR to cite a non-consensus source, but we don't need to worry about its veracity because have the information right here and it's exactly the same quality that past WP:RS have relied on. The WP:QUESTIONABLE sources establish notability, and I'm petitioning for a IAR one-time recourse to primary-source WP:OR verifiability.
It's possible that the big sources will overlook this amidst the deluge of more important scandals relating to the report, and this is exactly the kind of edit this article is intended to document. If we think it's ever important for WP readers to know about U.S. Congressional attempts to influence WP content, shouldn't we mention this textbook example of trying to frame a highly visible debate in more favorable terms? FourViolas (talk) 02:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)