It's really annoying when all these people complaining about bills like CISPA and other potentially dangerous bills don't actually mention why the bills are bad. Even the Wikipedia article on CISPA was horrible since it didn't directly quote the bill but just quoted others people paraphrasing the bill.
I object first and foremost to the obnoxious length of this bill.
A while back, the Apple Safari team had a build system that would run performance tests against every code commit. If the commit degraded performance, it was ejected and the developer had to "fix" it. Sometimes that fix meant going into another totally different piece of code to improve the performance there so that the overall commit wouldn't degrade performance.
Something like that should be required of congress. They should be required to constantly refactor laws so that the overall legislative burden upon society remains constant or maybe even decreases.
Directly quoting the law and citing the source of the law would not be "original research" in the context of your link. To quote your link:
The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia
to refer to material--such as facts, allegations, and
ideas--for which no reliable, published sources exist.
Directly quoting a bill, citing the house.gov or whichever source, provides context for the ensuing discussion (pros and cons) which in turn should consist of a set of citations.
So what in particular is bad about this bill? http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/s2105/text