This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's encyclopedic
coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the
project page. Please remember to
avoid self-references and maintain a
neutral point of view, even on topics relating to Wikipedia.WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject WikipediaWikipedia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
United States Congress 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.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles
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.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
United States congressional staff edits to Wikipedia is within the scope of WikiProject Joe Biden, a project dedicated to creating and improving content related to
Joe Biden. If you would like to participate, visit the
project page, where you can join the
discussion and see a list of open tasks.Joe BidenWikipedia:WikiProject Joe BidenTemplate:WikiProject Joe BidenJoe Biden articles
I agree with
User:Axl: I think this article should include a section that mentions that some IP addresses have been blocked after a clear pattern of abuse. It could cite articles like those mentioned. What do you think about also saying something like, "For more on this, see
Wikipedia:Congressional staffer edits.
DavidMCEddy (
talk)
20:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)reply
I just modified that section to use the word "block", previously absent in this sense in the article. I hope y'all will consider that an improvement.
DavidMCEddy (
talk)
11:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Capitol Hill training - August 18
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
These are in different namespaces, for good reason. This article is for general consumption and follows our content policies and guidelines.
WP:CONGRESS is for consumption by editors and has lots of useful information that would never pass content policies and guidelines such as
WP:WPNOTRS and
WP:IINFO. --
Dr. Fleischman (
talk)
01:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)reply
I have just added archive links to one external link on
United States Congressional staff edits to Wikipedia. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.