Talk:Twitter/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Criticism missing

Where is the criticism section? The page "Criticism of Twitter" is a redirect to a "criticism" section that doesn't exist. Why does the article contain only positive things about it? By contrast, the Facebook page has not only a rogue's gallery of criticism about it, but also an entire gigantic article related to Criticism of Facebook. 183.83.147.38 (talk) 13:08, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

See WP:CSECTION. Wikipedia writing style discourages separate criticism/controversy sections, because they lead to WP:NPOV problems and can also become a WP:COATRACK. Criticism should be integrated into the main text of the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:24, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ianmacm: Then why does the Facebook article contain it, and that too a very large section? It has a para about it in the lede as well. 183.83.147.38 (talk) 15:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

This is a WP:OTHERCONTENT argument. The WP:CSECTION essay says "In most cases separate sections devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like should be avoided in an article because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints." Amen to that. I don't like seeing a criticism/controversy section because it isn't good writing style. It should be possible to write a neutral article without doing this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:43, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ianmacm: In that case, can I remove the criticism section from the Facebook article? 183.83.147.38 (talk) 02:45, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

It never helps to say "this should be added/removed because another article has/does not have it." What matters is getting a consensus for edits. It should be possible to have a well written article without a criticism/controversy section.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:56, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Realistically, it might be more helpful to have a section titled something like Reception and insert both (valid) criticism and praise there. But even that requires a lot of moderation and it certainly shouldn't just turn into a place to dump all negative press about the service. Having a more neutral title discourages this while also providing a place to host legitimate content that couldn't be easily slotted into the History section. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 07:38, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

What piqued me is that the Facebook article contains many negative things while this article is essentially positive. Wikipedia should follow neutrality and be balanced, not offer such lopsided views for two such closely compared and contrasted social media platforms. 183.83.147.38 (talk) 05:14, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Controversy

There had been hundreds (if not thousands) of cases of controversies surrounding Twitter reported around the world till now. But interestingly the article does not carry a section with the title; Even though the article includes controversial issues, it was narrated in such a way as if the controversial elements regarding the issues are very much curtailed, in substance and volume, when compared to the volume of text dedicated for the event/issue itself. We urgetly need a section reflecting these issues. - Clemens Singar (talk) 02:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@Clemens Singar: I have raised the same issue above. You are right - this is a flattery piece compared to the Facebook article. 183.83.147.38 (talk) 03:41, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

This article would not reach WP:GA or WP:FA if it had a criticism/controversy section. These are deprecated as it should be possible to have a properly written article without one.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:26, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ianmacm: But this is a blatant failure of NPOV, if you show Facebook as controversial and Twitter in a positive light. 183.83.147.38 (talk) 12:49, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Political Bias

Figure I would leave this one up to the community as a whole. Found a study on the general political leanings of Twitter users. I found the findings to be quite noteworthy. Figured I would add to lead section. Was told that political leaning does not belong in lead section and was referred to MOS:LEAD I couldn't find anything that forbids adding the political leanings of the platform, and I do recall reading right wing social media articles that clearly indicated the political preferences of the userbase in the lead. (See Parler as one example)

I've since added the information to demographics though I do feel it would be a significant piece of information to add to the lead as it's quite telling.

Just for reference as to what I changed and then what was reverted:

Original - "As of Q1 2019, Twitter had more than 330 million monthly active users" to "As of Q1 2019, Twitter had more than 330 million monthly active users, the majority of which skew to the American political left." Artemaeus Creed (talk) 04:00, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

References

Citations

There is a slight bias towards the political left in this article. The citations are accurate, reliable, and neutral. Civictechstudent (talk) 06:01, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

"Bird site" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Bird site. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 9#Bird site until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Qwerfjkltalk 19:26, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

"Bird app" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Bird app. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 9#Bird app until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:59, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Sign error

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter#Finances table says that Net income in 2020 is 1,136 while it is -1,136 (US$M) according to source. QuantumBorg (talk) 06:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

New CEO

It seems that Twitter's CEO is now Parag Agrawal, the former CTO of the company. This will probably need changes in a lot of places, so I only wanted to bring this to the attention of everyone. The current CEO Jack Dorsey tweeting about him stepping down (effective immediately) via [this tweet](https://twitter.com/jack/status/1465347002426867720). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filiptronicek (talk • contribs) 15:58, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2021

Jack Dorsey has resigned as CEO of Twitter, with Parag Agrawal as his new replacement. Jdv8 (talk) 17:40, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

 Already done. Kleinpecan (talk) 19:01, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2021 (2)

Change CEO from Jack Dorsey to Parag Agarwal. Nephron66 (talk) 18:39, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

 Already done. Kleinpecan (talk) 19:01, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2021 (3)

Parag Agrwal will be the new CEO of Twitter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:5680:7DF5:AE7A:AC88:9694:665F (talk) 20:48, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

 Already done. Kleinpecan (talk) 20:51, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Twitter#Trending_topics sources? biased phrasing?

(I'm a complete newbie to Wikipedia and only came to point out, that) In the 'Trending topics' chapter of Twitter's article there are some statements that lack sufficient sources and instead make broad sweeping statements that sound somewhat prejudiced or negatively biased.

The section I mean is: "Trending topics are sometimes the result of concerted efforts and manipulations by preteen and teenaged fans of certain celebrities or cultural phenomena, particularly musicians like Lady Gaga (known as Little Monsters), Justin Bieber (Beliebers), Rihanna [...].[214]"

The source given does not in any way provide sufficient information to categorize all fans of the listed celebrities as 'preteen' or 'teenaged', nor is there any empirical evidence that those age groups would be particularly prone to try to mass-tweet certain hashtags. In fact preteens and teens are a smaller demographic group on twitter than the 20+ year olds.

Thank you for your attention

Removed. These teenagers are now adults anyway. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 00:15, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Stylisation of the word "Tweet"

The word "Tweet" in the context of Twitter is a proper noun, referring to short message posts posted with Twitter. Twitter capitalises the word when referring to these short messages, and it should similarly be reflected in this article to both be consistent with Twitter's own usage, and to not generically conflate the definition here with the common noun "tweet". 2601:6C0:8200:5C20:CDB6:5D9A:EE37:6FB4 (talk) 09:59, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected london network uk edit request on 25 December 2021

197.224.158.19 (talk) 01:50, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 01:58, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

board chair

I updated the infobox and the list of chair people because Bret Taylor has succeeded Patrick Pichette (https://twitter.com/pichette/status/1465409907193090048) as board chair. I'm sure this could be suitably referenced by a business publication but I'll admit I'm too lazy to find secondary sources showing this to be the case. Feel free to revert! riffic (talk) 19:17, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Piatigda, Kragw.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Twitter-logo.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:07, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Wrong net income in the Finances section

The chart in the Finance section reports a postive net income for 2018, 2019 and 2020. That's wrong, as evidenced by the source referenced in the chart itself. The correction is trivially easy: just add the missing sign in the 3 relevant boxes, but I cannot do it myself because the article is semi-protected.Falanwe (talk) 15:58, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Where’s a far left section?

There have been many instances of far left tweets being sent on the platform way more than far right tweets Dyldyl9 (talk) 20:36, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

The far-right section is so irrelevant and badly written that the right question is why do we need sections pointing the obvious. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 04:15, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

I want to insert a full stop after "Mercedes-Benz Superdome" in "During Super Bowl XLVII on February 3, 2013, the power went out in the Mercedes-Benz Superdome Mondelez International vice president Lisa Mann was asked...", to fix an accidental omission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:9982:EE01:B9E0:5C3B:7379:A4D4 (talk) 18:21, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Move Tor URL to external link

Can we move the tor url to external links or find a way that it does not stretch the infobox too much? DownTownRich (talk) 16:33, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

•  Done: This doesn't need to be in the infobox per WP:ELMINOFFICIAL. Facebook and BBC News have Tor versions but they are not in the infobox either. Twitter's Tor version is new and is intended to allow access even if it is blocked by the government (yes, we mean you, Vladimir).[1]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Created sub article of Twitter features

Greetings, I have created a sub article for Twitter features available at List of Twitter features, please assist with improving it and summarizing the main Twitter section to link to it. Further discussions can be made on its talk page - DownTownRich (talk) 12:14, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2022

Please add the recent announcement of Elon Musk being the largest shareholder. Greater than the founder Jack Dorsey’s current stake.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-04/musk-takes-9-2-stake-in-twitter-after-questioning-platform

Amongst others reported it along with the 13G being public information.

Substantial information. Gradesbrah (talk) 11:45, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

-- Having a 9% stake in Twitter doesn't make you the owner. This should be removed. 2601:83:8000:2A40:4D7F:82E2:279E:422 (talk) 17:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

This is mentioned in the article. It's an interesting development, but it doesn't make him anything like the owner of Twitter.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2022

Adding that Twitter acquired mobile platform OpenBack - https://techcrunch.com/2022/04/12/twitter-acquires-mobile-engagement-platform-openback/ Whistlesocks (talk) 16:39, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done WP:TECHCRUNCH pieces that are heavily based upon public relations material (such as this one) don't necessarily constitute due weight. Opening a discussion to gain consensus may be a way forward, but it's not obvious that it should be added. — Mhawk10 (talk) 17:27, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Musk's purchase offer in lede

Per WP:RECENT and WP:NOTNEWS, I don't think we need to mention neither Musks's recent stock purchases nor his offer in the lede section. As of now, these aren't defining elements of what Twitter is; they are merely the news of the week. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:14, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Definitely. If Musk does end up buying Twitter, they will be appropriate, but this is speculation now. --Masem (t) 03:19, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

+1. If nothing comes of it, then in 10 years it will be a strange thing to include in the lead. If it goes through though, then it should definitely be included in the lead. Endwise (talk) 03:27, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Keep no more than 2 sentences encapsulation in the lede, with a link to the section that details it. This is more than the "news of the week"; it is an existential crisis for the company. Also, it is not mere speculation, this is a real offer and the shareholders have a REAL decision to make. We have a duty to report both the decision making processs and the outcome of it, because WP:Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia. And a mere two sentences in the lede encapsulating the section below, does not amount to "recentism". As the policy on WP:NOTNEWS states,

While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information

. Regards, Jaredscribe (talk) 06:26, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Some users who have contributed this summary to the lede, and therefore presumed to agree with its inclusion, are @Pmsyyz, @X-Editor, @ViperSnake151, @Mhawk10, @MainlyTwelve Jaredscribe (talk) 06:36, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

That's not how consensus works. --Masem (t) 12:22, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

To say that my edit somehow affirms the whole inclusion of the Musk thing in the lead is misleading at best. I removed serial entrepreneur from preceding Musk's name, which is a far cry from agreeing with the whole summary in the lead after some sort of careful reading of the article. When I make gnomish edits, that don't imply my support for bigger substantial questions. And, sending mass ping to those who are presumed to agree with its inclusion comes off as WP:INAPPNOTE. — Mhawk10 (talk) 15:11, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

It's not in the lead at the moment, and I agree with the WP:NOTNEWS and WP:10YT concerns.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:39, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

LETS SEE LEFT WING WIKIPEDIA SPIN THIS ONE! HAHAHHAHAHAAHA. FREE SPEECH MATTERS! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.4.88.97 (talk) 19:22, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

$280 NFT Sale Untrue

Read the article. One auction had a high bid of $280, but did not end in sale. 74.109.117.203 (talk) 22:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I have fixed it. Thanks. Endwise (talk) 23:29, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2022

On the finance table showing "Net income in mil. US$", the 2020 total is listed as making 1,136 in income but the annual report listed as the source indicates that numbers in parentheses are a loss, meaning they lost that amount in 2020. Other places listing their income show the year as a loss as well, I tried linking some but they were ruled advertising. The information is in the currently provided source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.2.78.52 (talk) 15:57, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that, I fixed it. I'm not sure why PAVLOV removed your edit request. Endwise (talk) 16:02, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, the reference links seemed like a promotion page. PAVLOV (talk) 16:04, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2022

On April 25, 2022 Elon Musk reached a deal with Twitter to buy the company for over $46 billion. Rj0055 (talk) 19:07, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done This has already been added to the article with appropriate sources and correct numbers. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 19:15, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Elon Musk purchase of Twitter

Given it is such a major deal with implications for billions of people, I have created Elon Musk purchase of Twitter. Any help would be appreciated. Thriley (talk) 20:13, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2022 (2)

Elon Musk is not the CEO of Twitter. Parag remains the CEO. Please fix this. Taurineknight (talk) 19:16, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

yes, the deal is not complete as it requires the shareholders to vote though it is expected to pass. The jnfobox should still treat Twitter as a public ckmpany until the sale is complete. --Masem (t) 19:24, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

• and  Done. --Masem (t) 19:34, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

  Musk is still listed as CEO under the leadership section 2601:409:8500:CD50:F155:F308:38DE:BDA4 (talk) 20:16, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Lead section

I do not see the use of having this template saying that the lead is "too long". I've seen lead sections far larger without the mentioned tag. I think anything shorter would make the lead too short. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:28, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2022 (3)

Change the most recent CEO to Elon Musk ITZ NAO (talk) 23:06, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:12, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2022

Elon Musk not Mask 192.16.120.9 (talk) 09:58, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

•  Done fixed here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:03, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

History: time of first tweet

The entry in section History about the time of the first tweet is false. It was created correctly originally on 19 June 2009 by user The lorax as 12:50 pm PST, but the same user changed it later, on 11 October 2009, to 9:50 pm. The latter is wrong. Correct would be: The tweet was made at 12:50 PM in San Francisco.

The confusion is created by Twitter's use of localized time, derived from the clock in the devices used for viewing tweets. This has also confused the editors of Wikipedia. If a user sets the timezone on his/her smartphone to Los Angeles time, and then calls up the tweet, as linked in the article [2], he/she will see it localized in Los Angeles time, as 12:50 pm. Aloist (talk) 11:53, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Key people?

Pretty sure Musk is a "key person" now. Update the infobox. 2001:569:57B2:4D00:8D03:5FBA:BE9E:169D (talk) 03:06, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

See above: the deal is NOT yet complete and thus Musk is not yet any part of Twitter. --Masem (t) 03:21, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Since Twitter accepted the deal with Elon Musk for 44 Billion dollars, can we add Elon Musk as the owner?

According to CNN, New York Times, ABC, etc. And when you search it up it says that Elon Musk owns Twitter, it seems to me Elon is the official owner of Twitter. RowanJ LP (talk) 02:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

As other reports state, the deal still must be approved by shareholders and by regulatory agencies, so the deal is NOT complete, and so this page cannot reflect that Musk owns Twitter yet. --Masem (t) 02:46, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Ah! Thank you! RowanJ LP (talk) 03:43, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Elon Musk

Elon Musk of Tesla and Space X fame has bought twitter and should be listed as the owner — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.173.64.65 (talk) 08:36, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

See the threads above. The ink isn't dry on this deal yet and it could still fall through for some reason.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:26, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Contributions

What does the target of employee political contributions have to do with the company's finances? Doesn't belong in that section, if at all. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 04:11, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

How is this not relevant? They're a political company which is known for being left leaning, so incredibly strong political leanings of their employees seems relevant to me 72.33.2.228 (talk) 17:41, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

First off, its liberal leaning, not left leaning. Second, the company finances has NOTHING to do with the employee's political views. We could put the contributions in another section, but not in company finances. CheeseInTea (talk) 19:16, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Hashtags deserve a mention?

The concept of hashtagging by preceding a word with # became famous thru twitter. Does it not require coverage in the wiki? Ananth (talk) 08:31, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Ban/suspension policy

Nothing about Twitter's banning or suspending of tweeters, it rules to have violated its policies? GoodDay (talk) 18:26, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Is it something worth mentioning? Most platforms, Wikipedia included, suspend or ban users who violate policies. If there are some prominent suspensions, they might be already covered on the subject's page. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 14:53, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

When did twitter change to algorithms

It would be useful if pages on twitter and facebook mentioned when they switched from showing all the material on the people you follow or friend to algorithmically-recommended content, and possibly any other major algorithmic readjustments if those are publicly known. 195.37.184.82 (talk) 15:41, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Twitter has a child pornography problem, and I need this added onto the article.

Twitter actually and does have a child pornography problem, I guess a sub-section may be needed for this.

I got some articles regarding the problem. The problem has gotten out of hand in Twitter, and there has been a hashtag that is literal CP.

https://nypost.com/2021/01/21/twitter-sued-for-allegedly-refusing-to-remove-child-porn/ I664k (talk) 17:19, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

One article (especially in the NY Post) does not a "problem" make. If the court takes action it might become worthy of inclusion, but this would presently appear to be overblown. --AlisonW (talk) 17:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Editing tweets

Does the article mention this anywhere, and if not, where should it?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:43, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Would be worth a mention in the 'Tweets' subsection, provided there's already proper coverage of it. I heard it was being beta-tested but is a full rollout confirmed? ASpacemanFalls (talk) 09:48, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I'll post the exact details.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:02, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Something that I didn't think about: Twitter Blue is referenced in a later section, so it is not to be assumed that anyone reading the article in order has seen it. I could try linking to the section.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:12, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

The edit feature is mentioned under Twitter Blue. Although it's possible that eventually it would be allowed for more users. My source said it could take 10 years.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:16, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Starlink Access

Musk discussed terminating free Starlink internet access he has provided for several months, and asked that the U.S. government fund access for Ukrainians. As of 10-26-2022, he had decided to continue providing free access. I believe that the article should be edited to reflect those statements. As it currently reads, those distinctions aren't made, and it gives the appearance that Musk was going to terminate all paid-for service to the area.

Please update the article to more accurately convey what has occurred with regard to Starlink access. 68.103.51.244 (talk) 01:20, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Twitter new owner changed

The new owner of Twitter is now Elon Musk and most of employees got fired. Terminatorlord (talk) 09:05, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:14, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2022

Owner is Now Elon Musk 42.105.164.54 (talk) 12:33, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Twitter is owned by Twitter, Inc.. Elon bought Twitter, Inc. and is listed as the owner there. Terasail^[✉️] 12:38, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Twitter/GA4. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Multiple orange tags have persisted on this article. The "Society", "Technology and security", and "Appearance and features" sections in particularly are woefully out of date, and many sections either go into excessive or not enough detail. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:30, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Out of the 4 tags in the article, 2 were added less than 29 days ago and 1 was added without explanation. I don't see anything egregiously excessive at first glance. - LilySophie (talk) 11:18, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

"Not enough detail" shouldn't be a reason for delisting; the coverage just needs to be broad, not deep. I have no opinion on other issues, or whether this article merits delisting. DFlhb (talk) 13:04, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

@ElijahPepe It has been 18 days since this was opened. Any further comments? PerryPerryD Talk To Me 20:30, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

The article does not mention Stan Twitter, and Black Twitter is only mentioned as a See also link. I know this article is long, but I think those two subjects deserve one or two sentences. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 07:04, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

• Hi ElijahPepe, this GAR has been open for three months. Please keep or delist the article (although with an important article like this I would have recommended a community reassessment). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2022

2001:569:7D7D:2400:2C57:60DA:D0F2:C36 (talk) 00:12, 2 November 2022 (UTC) owner of twitter is Elon musk

 Not done Twitter is a service offered by Twitter, Inc.. Musk is the CEO of that company, not the service. --Masem (t) 00:18, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Details relating to the company should be moved off here

This article should be about the service and service only, and while it is necessary to touch on, for example, Musk's acquisition, that should be presented as changes to the service Musk wanted and is now looking to implement, and does not need any further details of the acquisition. I would likely do this myself by this weekend. Masem (t) 00:52, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreed; the whole section is currently out-of-place. DFlhb (talk) 02:59, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

“Content moderation controversy”

The “Content moderation controversy” subsection needs to be rewritten. In its current state it is sloppily written and quite clearly critical in Wikivoice of its subject. Asperthrow (talk) 06:42, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

If people put as much effort into [anything else] as they do adding random WP:RECENTISM cruft whenever any news reporter says anything, 80% of our articles would be featured-quality. Does no one see how silly it is to discuss a rumor (or a Musk "hype" tweet), mention criticism of Musk's "proposal", mention the next iteration of Musk's proposal, then the criticism of that new proposal, on repeat? What are we doing here? DFlhb (talk) 08:47, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I couldn’t agree more. Asperthrow (talk) 20:05, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Article is too long

Note: this is also relevant to the GA Reassessment above.

This article has prosesize of 96kB. It is therefore WP:TOOBIG. This issue predates the unrelenting attempts to add Musk-related info. Editors should focus on removing cruft, and scrutinizing WP:DUEness and relevancy. Not everything that's been published in reliable sources belongs on Wikipedia. Adding the relevant tag. DFlhb (talk) 09:26, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. Clearly we want to acknowledge that Musk bought Twitter, Inc., and intended/has since introduced planned changes to Twitter, but the deals of the acquisition are way beyond necessary here. Masem (t) 12:26, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Get out the weedwacker. Facebook is similar size. Too many editors read something interesting about a subject and mistakenly believe that it's automatically encyclopedic solely because it comes from a reliable source. We need more good editors like the two of you to quickly catch and remove nonsense edits like that. Stoarm (talk) 15:16, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm flattered; and Masem very much deserves that compliment.

Since these are far from the only article with issues, I think it may be necessary to address this systemically. I've posted two proposals to the Village Pump (I count products and services as "company-related"). I doubt I'll have much time to help on this page, but editors who try to improve these articles face too much of an uphill battle; these articles likely have a far shorter half-life than articles on other subjects. DFlhb (talk) 07:33, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

There's two key guidelines already in place: WP:RECENTISM in that short-term elements should not be elevated over long-term factors. And that we generally discurge "controversy" sections per WP:CRITS. This is not to say that a controversy section about Twitter isn't legit, but it should be well known, long-term ones and not those created from a short-term burst of negative feedback. Masem (t) 13:10, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Those are both essays, no? DFlhb (talk) 13:54, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Okay, both essays, but they are considered generally valid. They are good reasons for trimming a lot of content. Masem (t) 14:02, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

The best candidate for size reduction is no longer the acquisition section, but the Society section; if anyone's interested in tackling it, I'd suggest removing routine news coverage (what some journalists wrote), removing undue stuff (the Twitter poetry?), and basing it on scholarly sources. Finding highly-cited papers and major cultural trends (like Twitter becoming essential to political campaign) and covering them here (while removing most of the rest), will far be more effective than trying to make what we currently have more concise. DFlhb (talk) 13:14, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Twitter, for better or worse, is one of the major influences on society, today, at least in the English-speaking world (and this is English-language Wikipedia). Most of the content in this article IS important. While I agree that the "Twitter" article is too large, most of the content IS important enough for a Wikipedia article.

Consequently, rather than simply taking a lazy, reckless "weed-whacker" approach to the problem, sections of this article should become Wikipedia articles of their own, under the same title (or nearly the same) as in the current parent article. A summary of the original section should remain, under its own title, with a link to the new "main article" containing the details.

If this was a 90K article about peanut shells, simple deletions would be appropriate. But this is about one of the principal political and social communications venues, and influences, of the 21st Century. Not something to toy with out of procedural fussiness.

~ Penlite (talk) 20:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Not necessarily. There's still several sections written "as it happened" and are too detailed in events when they can be reduced to high-level factors. Particularly in the controversy aspects. This is not "important" content for the level that WP should cover. Masem (t) 21:04, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

2FA outage

I feel like the 2FA outage from a while ago deserves a mentiom in the Outages subsection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iofr (talk • contribs) 12:10, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Recent Employee Mass-Unemployment

Very recently, a reported 75% of Twitter Employees have volunterily left twitter. Im curious on how we could add this into the article, as Im sure theres news publications of this. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 15:52, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

There should be a ton of sources since, well, Twitter was basically dying last night so news places were going crazy. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:30, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

This is information that should be covered at Twitter, Inc., though a brief mention of this can be included here. Masem (t) 17:36, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Need Clarification

@ User : LilianaUwU, why my edit was reverter even though I had given proper citation? I am okay with my edit being reverted but need to know the reason why the edit was perceived as disruptive? 24thHusbandofDraupathi (talk) 06:32, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@24thHusbandofDraupathi It's mostly a manual of style thing. Other users aren't noted as having lots of fake followers, as it's a given that they all do. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 06:38, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2022

Can you split the section of these years? Here it is though:

From: 2014-2020

To:

• 2014–2017
• 2017-2020

This is the request I made for it to be edited. -- 2601:205:C001:EA0:DD9D:F980:1B2C:6117 (talk) 20:14, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Why? the 2014-2020 section is already not particularly large, why split it in half? Cannolis (talk) 20:37, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Would you agree with this addition even though it is not large? -- 2601:205:C001:EA0:DD9D:F980:1B2C:6117 (talk) 20:42, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Potentially, if you had a good reason for splitting it. Cannolis (talk) 20:52, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

No mention on how the majority of twitter is bots nor that it causes harm to journalism

There is absolutely no mention that the majority of twitter accounts are fake/bots, nor is there anything mention that it has a negative impact on journalism as a whole. I have several citations from reliable sources to back my statements, which I have added below with the context:

On the Bot accounts: Business Insider The Australian.

And here is how it negatively affects Journalism: The Atlantic Forbes Your Welcome. Wolfquack (talk) 21:41, 27 November 2022 (UTC) Wolfquack (talk) 21:41, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

On the bots, those are all claims and no evidence either way has been presented on the number that are bots, so we shouldn't include speculation. On the media impact, neither of those are usable sources - one is a Forbes contributor which are considered unreliable, and the other is a letter to the Atlantic and thus not a reliable source. --Masem (t) 22:04, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

@Masem Oh I didn’t see that thanks for pointing that out. Wolfquack (talk) 22:15, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

References

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA22 - Sect 200 - Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 September 2022 and 8 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rt2510, Kaisery (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Rt2510 (talk) 00:34, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2022

Propose adding the following section:

"2020 Election interference"

In December 2022, released emails showed that Twitter executives colluded with Democratic Party officials and members of the Biden campaign team to interefere with the 2020 general election by censoring and banning opposition content on the platform. In particular, Twitter executives searched for ways to ban the Hunter Biden controversy story even though they struggled to justify the ban as against Twitter's service rules.

We can add more text as the situation develops. 152.130.15.6 (talk) 13:17, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done The actual story was that the Hunter Biden story was blocked on Twitter because it triggered Twitter's rules related to "hacking" incidents. The conclusion by most other sources was that there was no interference here (particularly as further developments on the Hunter Biden story have shown this to not have anything to do with interference). --Masem (t) 13:52, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I'd like a second opinion by someone not previously involved with this article. Matt Taibbi, who broke this story and is a renowned, independent journalist, is saying that it was definitely election interference and we may yet see criminal charges brought against Twitter executives and Democratic Party officials. The US House will also likely have hearings on what appears to have been illegal collusion between the Biden White House and Twitter to suppress free speech, which is a constitutional violation. 152.130.15.6 (talk) 17:00, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't think your proposed text is supported by Taibbi's thread on Twitter - I don't see where he has mentioned the election at all, much less said that it was definitely election interference. Even the WP:FOXNEWS article you linked does not go so far as to directly claim that this was election interference (though unsurprisingly it does imply it). As to potential future criminal charges or hearings or whatever, WP:CRYSTAL. If/when those events occur, then we can describe what RS are saying. I do think that when RS finish going over all these files there may well be something worth writing about Twitter's moderation practices but don't see the rush to document pieces of a potentially evolving story here on Wikipedia immediately - we are WP:NOTNEWS. Deactivating the edit request template as this page is pretty high profile and we shouldn't need the tag to draw any necessary eyes to this discussion. Cannolis (talk) 21:06, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I think we have to separate two things here. Was it 1) interference and should it 2a) be stated as interference and 2b) be its own section. As for a) it can't be seriously argued that this was not interfering with the US election. The reason they reached out to Twitter was because they know that the facts would damage them and Twitter's importance for spreading information can not be understated. We can however not write this because it is not stated in the sources and because the interference isn't an isolated to this incident. It is better to talk about systemic bias and back this up with examples like this. On the same note, it can't be its own section unless the story continues from here.--Orubblig (talk) 22:32, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

It's not up to us to argue whether or not this was interfering with the election, we have to follow what the sources say about it - and that is not what they're saying about it. Not yet, anyway. MrOllie (talk) 22:35, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

That is what I wrote. However, there is a point to be made about being an editor of the article. The article is not just a random collection hyperlinks to news article in chronological order. We need to ensure all relevant information about Twitter is included. If information is missing, we to add with while backing it up with reliable sources.--Orubblig (talk) 22:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Election interference

Is someone going to add the latest bombshells? 2604:3D09:C77:4E00:C835:2BC1:7FFC:E836 (talk) 05:17, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

This is a major revelation that Democratic and Biden officials colluded with Twitter executives to interfere in the 2020 election by censoring and banning opposition on the platform. This could very well result in criminal charges, or at least some huge lawsuit awards. We need a large section on it in this article. 152.130.15.6 (talk) 13:07, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia's stance is that only information from 'reliable source' can be included in an article - CNN, MSNBC, Mother Jones, etc. If those 'reliable sources' decide not to report on it, then from Wikipedia's perspective it cannot be included in the article. Noctis83 (talk) 16:26, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that is a correct interpretation of Wikipedia:Reliable sources. What about things outside the USA or before these for-profit private sector publications were created? There are obviously reliable sources outside that small selection of sources and this international story is obviously something that this page should include in some form. There is also a CNN article about it, but this is besides the point.--Orubblig (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

There is reliable sources covering it, but it is not being called "election interference" by those sources, simply a few days that Twitter initially blocked the story dye to considering it as hacked information, before reversing that. Heavily right leaning sources are trying to paint it as something much more but those sources are not reliable. Masem (t) 22:34, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

As I wrote in the other discussion I agree with not phrasing it "election interference" and putting too much focus on the US 2020 election in particular, but don't you at least agree that it relevant to include information that established political parties have contacts inside the company that remove tweets that goes against their interests? Not only for US readers, but for the rest of the world as well as they probably collaborate there as well. This is something that has long been speculated, but now is a fact.--Orubblig (talk) 22:55, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Criticised for promoting hate speech

The intro says: "Twitter has been criticized for increasingly promoting hate speech[24][25] and allowing misinformation to spread,[26][27]".

That is absolutely true: there is no doubt that it has been criticised for that, as the references show. However, the inattentive reader might interpret that as meaning that the allegations (namely "promoting hate speech" and "allowing misinformation to spread") are actually true, something of which neither of the references provided offer any evidence, or even claim, in some cases.

I feel that in the interests of clarity and balance, that paragraph should be rewritten to make clear, at a minimum, that the facts are disputed (by Twitter, notably, as well as certain others such as Glenn Greenwald). 90.182.61.113 (talk) 00:14, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Nowhere in either of those 2 articles does it say that hate speech is 'promoted'. Allowing misinformation to spread, yes, doing less moderation resulting in increased hate speech, yes perhaps, but they are not PROMOTING it. That's just incorrect. Twitter's behavior doesnt even meet the criteria for promoting (actively encouraging that specific behavior or phenomenon) and nowhere have they ever said they approve of hate speech. It's just a nasty insinuation that doesnt follow from the facts. 2A10:3781:26BF:1:C7D:385B:1DBF:7312 (talk) 01:46, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Very true! It is also embarrassingly biased against Elon Musk and reeks of Wikipedia:Recentism. If we need to bring up the acquisition in the first paragraph, it should include cost cutting, plans of payment service and record number of users.--Orubblig (talk) 19:47, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Shadow banning of conservatives

The latest release of the Twitter files reveals that Twitter shadow-banned Dan Bongino, Charlie Kirk, Libs of Tik Tok, and Jay Bhattacharya, among others, then lied about it, including under oath to Congress. Let's get that mentioned in this article, why don't we? 152.130.15.2 (talk) 14:21, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Fox News is not an appropriate sole source for politics related topics, please give the specific changes you want. 168.8.125.20 (talk) 17:58, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I've added some mention of this from a RS, just because the whole "twitter files" business is notable in the debate it is creating. Masem (t) 18:40, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I like your addition, but we also need to add something to the Moderation of tweets sections? I'll give it a try--Orubblig (talk) 11:35, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

No, its not required there, as its not really anything about moderation, at least at the scale that the other parts about moderation already covered there. Masem (t) 14:28, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

It is actually more important information than most of the information in there at the moment and it is actually not covered in the rest of the page. It true that it is also history, but that can be said about everything relating to the article.

It is universally acknowledged that the censuring of established United States news organisations was a major event in the history of Twitter moderation. It is a crucial fact for the context of Musk's purchase of the company. You even include in your own shortened version of the section. However, it at the moment only mentioned as part of the Twitter files. It should obviously be introduced before you reference it as an event the Twitter files added information to.

At the moment the article says nothing about the U.S. major political parties having direct special access to Twitter moderation. The article does however shame non Western countries such India and the Philippines for engaging in similar activities.

I suggest we bring those edits back. Ideally in the moderation section, but at least in the history section. --Orubblig (talk) 20:06, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

If it is universally acknowledged, it should be easy to find a better source, then. Propose one here (something not barred by WP:RSP) and which actually supports your text (not something sorta similar to your text) Then we'll have something to talk about. MrOllie (talk) 20:37, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

References

Twitter secondary offering

Masem, I don't understand why this edit is inappropriate here. Please would you elaborate?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Twitter&diff=1127851692&oldid=1127791929

soibangla (talk) 01:35, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

That's about the business dealings, so are better suited to Twitter, Inc., not the page about the service. Masem (t) 02:00, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I did not know Twitter, Inc. existed. Thank you. soibangla (talk) 02:04, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2023

I would like to change magnate Elon Musk to Genius, Billionaire, Playboy, Philanthropist Elon Musk most due to the fact that Elon Musk is our real life Tony Stark PPMAN999 (talk) 16:27, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Lemonaka (talk) 17:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

apPeared

Correct "apeared" to "appeared". 79.53.217.48 (talk) 19:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Done. Larry Hockett (Talk) 19:46, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Dorsey's Resignation

Why is it that this article does not mention anything about Dorsey's resignation as CEO and from the board?--Cube b3 (talk) 03:38, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Home page image

Hello, the image used at the start of the article of twitter’s home page is inaccurate (as of the 22nd of December, 2022 in England).

The new homepage shows a ‘for you’ page. 209.93.228.189 (talk) 16:37, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Agree, I am in the UK and as of a few minutes ago this was my non logged in home page. Whether this is true in other countries is harder to say, but if this is commonplace the infobox image may need updating.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:05, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

This is in the news, but as we've already seen here, some people have had the "for you" tab for a while. As the Mashable article says, this is pretty much copying the idea of the "for you" link found on TikTok.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:27, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

New checkmark should be noted.

New checkmark seems to be yellow for news agencies. don't know when it was launched. please update, thanks. MarioFan324234 (talk) 16:10, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Inclusion of a recent outage

This paragraph in the History section drew my attention: On February 8, 2023, Twitter users widely reported on various social media platforms that they were receiving error messages on Twitter such as "The content of your Tweet is invalid" or "You are over the daily limit for sending Tweets.” Twitter has not communicated the reasons why this outage occurred, but some believe the issue was caused by an engineer “unintentionally deleting data related to rate limiting”.

It doesn't seem notable enough to be included, as it's a short-lived technical issue that didn't cause any notable consequences. Devoting a paragraph to it feels a bit excessive, though I wouldn't go as far as shouting WP:Recentism. Still, its importance doesn't seem too great and I'd argue it could be removed or at least pared down substantially. Any opposition? ASpacemanFalls (talk) 14:52, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Resignation of Elon Musk as Head of Twitter

• • REDACTED**

 Not done: The source says that he intends to step down as CEO in the future, something that he has been saying for several months but hasn't actually done yet.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:09, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Starting April 15

For you is now verified accounts.WASPED 3021 (talk) 02:47, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Change of Logo

Bird logo should be changed to the new dog one. 2A00:23C6:4306:4401:A066:D36F:ACC4:B2ED (talk) 19:20, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Now reliably sourced, but the reason why this has happened remains unclear.[3] ♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:26, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

April 3 Logo Change

I can see the logo is mostly a Dogecoin logo, not the Doge meme, here's some reference I found: https://variety.com/2023/digital/news/elon-musk-twitter-logo-doge-dogecoin-meme-1235572343/ BurningGreymon258 (talk) 02:09, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

dogecoin update

add dogecoin logo dogecion Supreme3leader (talk) 04:27, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Twitter's branding guidelines have not changed, this is likely temporary and thus adequately covered in the last paragraph of Twitter#Post-acquisition. Tollens (talk) 04:36, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

ok Supreme3leader (talk) 04:41, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I see now at at acquisition thank you Supreme3leader (talk) 04:42, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2023

Twitter logo needs to be changed to the doge logo because twitter no longer uses the blue bird logo and now uses the doge logo. 2405:8180:1003:C3F7:7DB7:6F72:9A86:3B57 (talk) 15:21, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: see above Cannolis (talk) 15:48, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Agree for the time being, but it is now a while since April 1, and it is unclear why this has happened. My guess is that it is some sort of internal prank that Elon Musk has aimed at the disgruntled Twitter employees, but that is just a theory.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:58, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

As of now, it looks like the blue bird is back again.[4] But let's wait for some more RS.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:02, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Controversy Topic

Shouldn’t there be Controversy topic that explains Twitter’s left leaning bias under Jack Dorsey or maybe mentioned in the first few paragraphs? I’ve noticed Wiki has these sections on other pages. WhowinsIwins (talk) 05:15, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Actually, I would dispute that view. Multiple websites have actually reported that Twitter's algorithm tends to amplify right-wing voices: The Guardian: Twitter admits bias in algorithm for rightwing politicians and news outlets, BBC: Twitter's algorithm favours right-leaning politics, research finds, The Economist: According to Twitter, Twitter’s algorithm favours conservatives.

So, if you're going to make an argument about a social media platform having a political leaning, it would greatly help your case if you were actually truthful about which way the platform leans. But, I do agree with your basic idea that there should be a "Controversy" section about Twitter's political leaning; as people need to know that the way Twitter is coded actually tends to amplify right-wing voices.

And, as far as your claim that this website has a "Controversy" section on other pages, care to elaborate on what articles about social media platforms on here have that section as it pertains to political leaning? 2600:1700:C960:2270:5854:458C:454E:2788 (talk) 10:42, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

This is just not true - in the sense of dishonestly misleading. Twitter has been shown to amplify marginal/far-from-center content of BOTH SIDES. It seems to me that "the Twitter Files" are notable and could be referenced in the lead. OTOH, with the management change, they aren't relevant to the current Twitter, are they? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.130.71.156 (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

You know, making claims without having something to back them up isn't helping your argument any. Oh, and knowingly & intentionally engaging in "both-sides-ism" shows you are being intentionally dishonest, because anyone caring to actually look up information related to that will find out, in a short matter of time, that that concept is not only dangerously flawed, one could almost say it's a lie.

Oh, and with you bringing up The Twitter Files, are you going to be intentionally dishonest there & ignore how so many people on Twitter have rebuked what Musk & Taibbi put forward as being extremely cherry-picked to the point that they refuse to release the information that Dorsey has dared Musk to put out that shows Elon being deceptive in not wanting anyone to know how much a liar, corporate fraud, & vulture capitalist he is? I mean, why else would he have backtracked about not buying Twitter shortly after it filed suit against him for not going through with his purchase of it? 2600:1700:C960:2270:B916:A57E:1C95:929B (talk) 06:11, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Nice links, and thank you for bringing some facts into this! If you get an account, you could use these citations to add a section about right-leaning bias... Birdsinthewindow (talk) 22:10, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

@WhowinsIwins: I disagree with you, but you can add a section about this if you can find notable, trustworthy sources to back up your claim. See WP:VER and WP:BOLD. Birdsinthewindow (talk) 22:08, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2023

"Change CEO to FLOKI" Intermax2 (talk) 04:55, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: From my understanding of the law, it is not legally possible for a dog to be the CEO of anything. Tollens (talk) 05:46, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia:Verifiability the claim that Twitter has broken the law should be cited. MurrayScience (talk) 14:23, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I know that WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD but Musk is known to joke and say completely false things that are then treated seriously, such as the dreaded "business magnet" business, which has been discussed ad nauseam on this very website. So I don't see how one interview with him is grounds for putting a dog as the CEO in an encyclopedia, especially when the only sources we have are based off of that one claim. If it's not verifiable information, let's not put it up as fact. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 19:22, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Please stop your pointless edit war over what was obviously a joking remark. Funcrunch (talk) 20:22, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I think if Wikipedia is to have a stated CEO for Twitter, then it needs a citation. At the moment, no such citation exists, and the only citable information points to a dog being the CEO. This falls under WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD, or we need to make inference that this was a joke. At the very least, we could either remove CEO or put it down as disputed. MurrayScience (talk) 22:39, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure Elon's latest attempt at humor is hysterical, but changing the CEO parameter to his dog is silly. If you'd like to document all of his jokes in the body of the article, like the critically important changing the logo to a dog for a few days or changing his office sign to "Titter", then go for it. Please note that you've broken WP:3RR here today - exercise caution. Sam Kuru (talk) 23:23, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

There are plenty of citations that show Musk is the CEO. The only source we have for it being the dog is Musk's own words. We need to be relying on the multitudes of verifiable sources, not one man's joke, let's not get sidetracked and forget the purpose of Wikipedia. It's not a place for hosting jokes. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 07:49, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Also, someone being quoted in a reliable source is different than the reliable source itself making the same statement. Musk can say that his dog is the CEO and reliable sources can publish that. However, the article may recognize the dog as the CEO only when reliable sources begin to "seriously" do so. فره ور تیش (talk) 10:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2023

the CEO of twitter is not Elon Musk but Floki Musk - this is the objective truth and Wikipedia should conform to this, failure to do so is misinformation 51.9.229.105 (talk) 10:55, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

No, see above. This is like Caligula (reportedly) trying to make his horse Incitatus a consul.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:36, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Caligula's Horse is alleged, therefore there is a reason not to include it as official information but merely as an anecdote.

The distinction is that this is verifiably the case, this is true.

The use of precedent should not dictate how Wikipedia should hold itself, rather if you are interested in the truth you should be willing to go against a precedent set should it be incorrect or not in line with the truth.

Additionally, i presume what you mean by this is that changing this page in this way would devalue the page(reduce reliability) - regardless of it being an improvement on accuracy - This is a false choice(binary logical fallacy), as Elon Musk can be listed in his position, and Floki his, Such a change would be in line with greater accuracy of page, greater reliability of page, and greater depth of information to page(use of nuance) - surely **this** if nothing else is the point of Wikipedia. 51.9.229.105 (talk) 12:25, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

"The distinction is that this is verifiably the case, this is true."

Can we see some verification, then? It's as simple as that, if some outlet can verify that Musk was not joking but his dog is, indeed, on paper, the CEO of Twitter, then it can be changed. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 13:02, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

No, it is not verifiably the case, since the applicable section of the Nevada corporation code (like the Delaware code) states that an officer of a corporation must be a natural person, and therefore a human being. Musk's jokes are bad enough without fans running them into the ground. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 18:33, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2023 (Grammar/Past tense)

technology>open source 2nd paragraph, change wording to past tense as well as some weird grammar:

On March 31, 2023, Twitter released the source code for Twitter's recommendation algorithm[318] that chooses which tweets show up on your timeline to GitHub. It breaks down what the algorithm looks at when determining which tweets to feature in the For You timeline and how it ranks and filters them. According to Twitter's blog post:[319]"We believe that we have a responsibility, as the town square of the internet, to make our platform transparent. So today we are taking the first step in a new era of transparency and opening much of our source code to the global community." CEO Elon Musk promised the move over one year prior — on March 24th, 2022, before his acquisition of the site. He polled his followers about whether Twitter's algorithm should be open source, and around 83 percent of the responses said "yes." On Feburary 22nd, Musk promised the release within a week before pushing back the deadline to March 31st.[320] Bobbobairy (talk) 15:04, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done Actualcpscm (talk) 09:23, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Removal of Legacy Checkmarks

Now that they’re gone, does that mean will remove the sources in articles? Legacy verified accounts were reliable sources after all. But now that they’re gone, how are we supposed to see reliability in the accounts. No Twitter Blue users do not count at all as their a different subject! BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 21:07, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

NPR and Twitter response to Pentagon leaks

Please add sections covering these controversies. 38.49.194.196 (talk) 12:41, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Within the NPR, definitely the same with PBS, BBC, and now CBC should be discussed under "Labeling of publicly-funded news sources". I'm not sure if the Pentagon leaks need to be captured as I haven't seen much coverage of those Masem (t) 12:46, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Can the following be added?

The first section needs to refer to a policy change in Twitter related to how it defined govt-funded agencies, which is then (mis)applied to NPR and others. I also believe there's a trail from the NYTimes' dropping of Twitter to this but I would need to research that a bit more. --Masem (t) 12:51, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Added some comments to the label controversy. I also agree that the paragraph on the Pentagon leak is unnecessary. Esolo5002 (talk) 13:12, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

The proposed section on the Pentagon leaks doesn't really make sense. As NYT notes, we don't really have reason to believe that the materials were hacked, so it wouldn't really fall under Twitter's hacked materials policy. Endwise (talk) 13:57, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

These sections belong at Twitter under Elon Musk, not here. It would be excessive to add entire paragraphs for each controversy here; we'd be at 300KB prose size by year's end. DFlhb (talk) 23:31, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended content

State-affiliated media label controversy In April 2023, Twitter designated National Public Radio's main account as "US state-affiliated media", a label that was typically reserved for foreign media outlets that directly represented the point of view of their respective governments, like Russia's RT and China's Xinhua. Twitter's decision was widely considered controversial as NPR is an independent news organization that receives a small minority of its funding through government programs. (I would remove this sentence, it is essentially the same as the next one and might violate WP:NPOV) Esolo5002 (talk) 13:10, 17 April 2023 (UTC) Twitter's previous policy had explicitly mentioned NPR, as well as the United Kingdom's BBC, as examples of networks that were not considered as state-affiliated due to their editorial independence. NPR ceased activity on its main Twitter account in response to the designation. On April 8, 2023, Twitter changed the designation of NPR's account from "state-affiliated" to "government-funded". On April 10, after managing to get in contact with Musk himself, NPR reporter Bobby Allyn wrote in a tweet that the platform's owner told him he was relying on a list accessible through a Wikipedia category page, named "Category:Publicly funded broadcasters", in order to determine which news organizations' accounts should be deemed as "government-funded media". Twitter then added the label to other sources such as PBS, the BBC, and Voice of America, which all three objected to. On April 12, NPR announced that its accounts would no longer be active on Twitter, citing the platform's "inaccurate and misleading" labeling of NPR as "government-funded media" despite the fact that it receives "less than 1 percent of its $300 million annual budget" from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. As their last post on the platform, the network shared links to their alternative newsletters, websites and social media profiles in a thread. (I would also remove this sentence, it has little to do with Twitter and doesn't add much, in my opinion to the readers understanding of the situation.) Esolo5002 (talk) 13:10, 17 April 2023 (UTC) In an email to the staff explaining the decision, CEO John Lansing allowed individual NPR journalists and staffers to choose for themselves whether to keep using Twitter, while noting that "it would be a disservice to the serious work you all do here[.]" Pentagon leaks Main article: 2023 Pentagon document leaks The leaked classified documents continued to be spread on Twitter, despite the social media platform formally disallowing the spread of hacked materials per its policy page. In response to a tweet about the leak, Twitter CEO Elon Musk sarcastically wrote that "you can totally delete things from the Internet" and "that works perfectly and doesn't draw attention to whatever you were trying to hide at all", seemingly alluding to the Streisand effect and suggesting that Twitter would not take down the documents. Discord is "cooperating with law enforcement" in regard to the leak.

References

Trim proposal

I see we're still struggling with excessive length, so here's a proposal to start tackling that: trim "Twitter Amplify" from three paragraphs to one (moving the rest to the dedicated article), and trim the "Record tweets" subsection from four paragraph to one (again moving the rest to the dedicated article). Both contain noteworthy material, but they're minor compared to the overall topic. DFlhb (talk) 23:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

recommended merger with x Corp

this page should be merged with x corporation. Twitter is no longer company United States as of the beginning of April 2023 2603:7080:8800:9C30:F673:5ABD:B5C:6534 (talk) 15:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Twitter is a service, not a company. The company is Twitter, Inc. Regarding a merger of that page with X Corp., see this discussion on the Twitter, Inc. talk page. Funcrunch (talk) 20:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2023

I've noticed that the second paragraph in the lead says this:

"Twitter, Inc. is based in San Francisco, California and has more than 25 offices around the world."

Since this is outdated information as Twitter, Inc. has been merged into X Corp. and thus is no longer active (which the page itself awknowledges earlier on), I'd suggest to change the sentence to something like this:

"X Corp. is based in San Francisco, California."

190.105.217.208 (talk) 19:37, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done Esolo5002 (talk) 16:29, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks 190.105.217.208 (talk) 00:39, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Consent decree

I was surprised the term "consent decree" and/or "consent order" does not appear on this page or the one for Twitter inc.

https://www.reuters.com/technology/us-ftc-asks-twitter-if-it-has-resources-comply-with-consent-decree-2022-12-15/

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/07/technology/ftc-twitter-investigation-privacy.html

Mathiastck (talk) 22:05, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Ella Erwin

There should be something about Ella Erwin leaving Twitter following removal of content filtering on What Is a Woman?. PalmScrost (talk) 23:01, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Question about lede

Are there any sources to support the claim that Twitter is sometimes referring to as "X"? Professor Penguino (talk) 01:46, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Not any independent sources as far as I can see - there is some discussion of this on news sites but it all seems ultimately sourced to promotional / teaser statements by Musk and his staff. So I have removed it. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 21:36, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Professor Penguino (talk) 23:36, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Unregistered users and public tweets

Introductory paragraph below CV block states that unregistered users may only view public tweets. This is no longer the case as of 2023-06-29 (possibly earlier). Tweets are only viewable after logging in with a username. 2600:1700:E73:C10:C9EA:4F5:919F:6D59 (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

related edit request

What is a CV block?

Twitter#Tweets says,

Tweets are publicly visible by default,

but as it says in Twitter#Post-acquisition,

On June 30, 2023, Twitter blocked unregistered users from viewing tweets or profiles on the platform.

Maybe change

Tweets are publicly visible by default, _{but senders can restrict message delivery to only their followers}

to

By default, tweets are visible to any user signed into a Twitter account, _{but senders can restrict message delivery to only their followers}

or something like that? 173.67.42.107 (talk) 07:31, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Current CEO of Twitter

Linda Yaccarino has assumed the charge of new CEO of Twitter on 12 May, 2023. 2402:E000:424:83:0:0:0:1 (talk) 09:55, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources to support this? —C.Fred (talk) 11:52, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

May 12th is the day she resigned from NBCUniversal, and Musk announced she would be the new CEO, not when she assumed charge. --2001:1C06:19CA:D600:C169:F12A:3E15:DFF3 (talk) 04:53, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2023

Change 'twitter' to X Eyalm123 (talk) 07:35, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 07:54, 24 July 2023 (UTC)