This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Organizations Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations 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.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

• https://www.dailydot.com/debug/hamilton68-twitter-russian-bots/ "[D]ocuments Taibbi reviewed said Twitter was uncertain about the dashboard from the get-go and did not believe anyone on it should be qualified or quantified as a foreign agent. According to a review it commissioned, just 36 of the 644 accounts were physically registered in Russia. Taibbi also unearthed some damning quotes from Twitter executives that he shared, who didn’t believe that Hamilton 68 was accurately representing his platform."
• https://www.foxnews.com/media/latest-twitter-files-show-media-dems-relied-single-source-alleging-russian-bot-activity-scam same Twitter executive "bullshit" quote

I see the reason.com (Robby Soave) source is tagged as "better source needed". Maybe one of these will do. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:41, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is apparently considered important only by right wing and conspiracy theory websites. I have searched several times and found no mainstream source that describes this as a significant fact about Twitter, the FBI, ASD, or anything other than Taibbi and Musk. SPECIFICO talk 21:12, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Dot is not a conspiracy theory website as far as I'm aware, though I'm aware that consensus is shaky on Fox News. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would not use Daily Dot as a significant source for contentious or controversial content. It is not really a mainstream publication with a strong history of editorial oversight and integrity. SPECIFICO talk 22:41, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• This source seems alright: Twitter Files 15 furthers the misunderstanding of 'Hamilton 68'. It's quite in depth, and was written by what looks to be a respectable enough journalist (has written for NPR & WaPo in the past) for The National Desk; I think this would be treated as a standard WP:NEWSORG as far as reliability is concerned. Endwise (talk) 03:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I took a stab at it based on this source and the Daily Dot one. Endwise (talk) 08:18, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Good addition. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:06, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Much better. Daily Dot is clickbaity borderline RS (in this case, they've basically just copied and pasted Taibbi's tweets and added a sentence or two) but this seems enough with the three sources including the ASD response. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:50, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  When I said "Much better" I meant this version, not the later versions that included opinion pieces in unreliable sources and introduced inaccuracies. It's important that we don't overclaim and that we don't use highly partisan opinions without attribution. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:09, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The header of this section is not neutral. We have the opinion of one or more Twitter employees in the face of an external organization, ASD, questioning or criticizing their platform and the possibly the individuals' personal judgment or competence. It is not NPOV to report the employees' statements as if they had found the truth or a smoking gun that invalidates the ASD's work or categorizations as false in Wikivoice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs)

Please be aware: revisions which change this article's content and meaning, whilst also lazily leaving the previously cited sources intact, leads to failed verification. This creates problematic Neutrality and WP:BLP issues. Repeatedly doing so is disruptive (mayhaps indictive of tendentious editing as well), and could result in topic bans or blocking.

Please be mindful that editors including new material in the first place MUST ensure the citations given directly support whatever new contributions are made (See: WP:BURDEN).

If desired new material is no longer in alignment with what the cited source says: an entirely new source is required.

Happy trails! -- dsprc ^[talk] 20:29, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This means no using bullshit sources which predate the sections content by months in an effort to axegrind and shorehorn whatever POV one has into the article whilst simultaneously violating BLP. -- dsprc ^[talk] 20:36, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on content, not contributors. This page is a Contentious Topic and the highest standards apply here. SPECIFICO talk 14:02, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The dozens(!) actively offering opinions at RSP, and on offer here, aren't arbiters of reliability. Our beloved, upstream, external sources are – They say IJR is reliable.[1][2]

Happy Trails! -- dsprc ^[talk] 01:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article is tagged as opinion ("commentary"), so a discussion about its wholesale reliability is unnecessary and citing WP:RSOPINION suffices.

I'll note though that that regarding this: The dozens(!) actively offering opinions at RSP, and on offer here, aren't arbiters of reliability -- that is actually essentially how consensus on Wikipedia works. If community consensus on its reliability is against you, it is not overridden by your saying so. Endwise (talk) 01:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Endwise – If commentary is the real objection: WP:INTEXT is sufficient. Initial stated objection was against the source publication solely – expressly, and simply, because it has a "conservative" bias (which honestly, further typifies the real biases we struggle against).

Thank $DEITY we have Wikipedians to dictate what is The Truth™ – especially one varying day to day, with minimal input from the broader "community". It works so well for Croatia…[3]

The IJR discussions at RSP are stale, BTW – you're free to reopen one…

If reliable sources say another source is reliable, it is reliable. Existing consensus says we objectively (shocking, I know…) follow what upstream reliable sources say – whether we like it or not. -- dsprc ^[talk] 01:59, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is very far from a reliable source. It's a partisan opinion piece in an opinion magazine, which has sourced it from The Western Journal, which also looks unreliable. If an opinion is noteworthy, we can include it with attribution, but I see no reason to think this opinion is noteworthy. We can't use it as a source for facts. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:11, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is this not RS for any factual statements, but the whole event is still not supported by solid mainstream reporting. For significant content, we do not have to be scraping the fringe media for sources. There's a significant NPOV WEIGHT issue with respect to the topic of this page. The Musk/Taibbi events are well covered in their own page on the Twitter Files and the two individuals' pages. SPECIFICO talk 14:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So what I see here, for my direct consumption. Wikipedia is simply a digestion of a select few articles from a highly regulated list of reliable sources. If reporting is about Reliable Sources and not picked up by peer Reliable Sources, old reporting is frozen in time, because corrections have become a problem for modern media.

Much like tracking 600+ twitter accounts of mostly conservative anti large government Americans is tracking Russians bots/trolls. Nothing is supposed to make be factual here, it is supposed to be where the frozen in time and space Reliable Sources have promoted the story to be. 2601:248:C000:3F:D982:CF6B:3668:85B (talk) 14:25, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just looked at the two sources which are being used to show IJR is considered reliable by other sources: the first, USA Today, doesn't actually say that, and the second, a Medium blogpost, doesn't mention IJR. BobFromBrockley (talk) 19:05, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given the new revelations by the Twitter Files this article and especially it's Dashboard 68 should be majorly overhauled. https://www.aa.com.tr/en/world/leaks-show-twitter-found-no-evidence-of-russian-involvement-in-2018-hashtag-campaign/2786498# Katzmann83 (talk) 11:10, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It’s incredible that the Hamilton 68 wiki page still sits here as though they weren’t caught red-handed pumping a steady stream of lies into the world to overturn an election. 104.33.232.183 (talk) 01:36, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The methodology of the Hamilton 68 dashboard, as presented in this article, is materially misrepresented. See [4]https://securingdemocracy.gmfus.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/ASD-Policy-Brief-Latest-edited.pdf for the original.

1. The methodology states that "Not all content in this network is 'created' by Russia. A significant amount—probably a majority—of content is created by third parties and then amplified by the network because it is relevant to Russian messaging themes." Saying "probably a majority" was created by third parties and not Russia is a vast underestimate. Indeed, it appears from reliable data exposed in the Twitter Files that the vast majority of the content was not created by Russia. The statement in the methodology is either an intentional falsehood or a major error resulting from huge methodological failures.

2. While it is true that ASD said not all accounts identified in the network were controlled by Russia, that is not a refutation of Roth's statement that the ASD used "shoddy methodology" to incorrectly label authentic accounts as "Russian stooges without evidence". Indeed, as noted above, the ASD claimed that a large proportion of the content in the network (as much as half) was created by Russia, implying that a large proportion of accounts were acting as stooges by repeating it.

3. The methodology makes these statements, patently ridiculous in the light of what the Twitter Files exposed: "We expect that we would have faced criticism for identifying the 600 accounts, and we expected (correctly) that we would face criticism for not identifying the accounts. We choose not to identify the accounts for the following reasons: "1. As noted above, our metrics are very accurate, but not 100 percent accurate. We believe based on the performance of the metrics described above and the subsequent manual review, that the monitoring list is at least 98 percent accurate, but that leaves as many as 12 accounts that may not be relevant. We are not willing to publicly attribute even one specific account incorrectly. "2. A 98 percent accuracy rate is, however, more than adequate to perform analysis on the aggregate set. "3. If we identified the users in the dataset, they would certainly change their behavior and render the dashboard essentially useless."

4. The burden of proof rests on the person making the allegation. ASD failed to produce any evidence whatsoever to support any of its allegations. It is not the job of Matt Taibbi or anyone else to prove their allegations false. It's on them to prove their allegations true. TwoGunChuck (talk) 04:03, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]