Talk:Twitter under Elon Musk
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Twitter under Elon Musk article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk was copied or moved into Draft:Twitter under Elon Musk with this edit on December 20, 2022. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
And then what? edit
I have noticed a lot of dangling threads in this article, which I'm going to go through and tag. Most of these take the form of, e.g. On March 23 at 13:24 UTC, Musk said that he was going to 'ban the hell out of that guy'
or something along those lines, and then... nothing. Did he do it? Was the guy banned at all? Is he still banned? What does the guy think about this? We should be able to provide information like that. jp×g🗯️ 23:56, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
- Man, there are a lot of these. Some of this stuff seems like it does pass the test of time, but some of it really does not. Like this:
By December 17, Twitter was blocking some links to Mastodon as being "potentially harmful" or "malware".
. What... happened? Was anyone banned for this? Did anything happen? Did it get enforced and then lifted? If it's not still the case, when was the policy lifted? If we can't find anything along those lines in news coverage, we should probably treat it as a one-off event (e.g. "on December 17, it was reported that links to blah blah blah were being blocked due to whatever"), rather than phrase it like this is a continuing thing. jp×g🗯️ 00:23, 10 November 2023 (UTC)- As an update, I've started to go through these "needs update" tags, resolving the issues you are correctly raising. I'm by no means done but dealt with about half of these so far. For reference, some were very useful, like after NPR ceased activity on Twitter, this did require an update to explain that 6 months later they still no longer use Twitter, and the negligible effects this has had. However, I did find some of tags inaccurate. For example many paragraphs in the state-affiliated media section had these tags, but the final sentence adequately summarised the end result; that Twitter stopped using these labels entirely, even if there was a little extra info that could be added for clarity. Some of these simply needed a WP:CLARIFY tag, rather than a needs update, in order to bring the information up to date, or a least a better reason for needing updating.
- I've also tried to correct some the wording/phrasing if you also correctly pointed out, where there is no further information avoiding giving the impression that the event is ongoing or present as it were. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 16:27, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Pull quotes should be removed edit
We should not have all these pull quotes that highlight what Musk happened to say on Twitter. See WP:PQ. --ZimZalaBim talk 22:30, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- Firstly, this has nothing to do with Wikiproject Quebec, but I assume you mean MOS:PQ.
- Secondly, they aren't what Musk "happened to say on Twitter", they were the official announcements of policy changes, referenced by numerous WP:RS as such. I therefore wouldn't describe them as out-of-context with undue emphasis, but instead the opposite. As a reminder for context sake, Musk exclusively made "official announcements" via his personal Twitter account in almost 100% of cases, nor via press releases.
- The one exception is the "account doxxing" statement, which while it wasn't the official brief announcement from Twitter Safety without much explanation, it was the justification behind the policy change, again referenced by multiple WP:RS. So overall I not only find your brief assessment inaccurate, but also somewhat insulting to think that I merely added "random" statements from Twitter into subject sections.
- As for those in Reactions and commentary, these weren't just the "loudest voices", these reactions as commentary were also the most widely referenced (and discussed) by reliable sources, and therefore I wouldn't say out-of-context or with undue emphasis by any means, given that a lot of the commentary came from media and other institutions, that can hardly be described as very notable with single sources.
- In any other context of using cite tweet in articles whereby the tweet isn't directly attributed to the section subject, as the original source of said subject, I'd 100% agree it'd be undue emphasis, as well as out-of-context. Of course if others disagree with this reasoning and think there should be less or none then feel free to remove. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 11:08, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Restructure of sections proposal edit
Proposing a change to the structure of 2nd headed sections to include "Policy changes". I still feel this page is a bit of a "mess" when it comes to structure, as not every 3rd headed section falls into the sub-section of "Content moderation" or "Other developments", and I wouldn't describe "Policy changes" as content moderation either. I already made a few moves, but thought I'd check with others on a bolder re-arrange.
---
Corporate management
Layoffs and mass resignations Resignation poll Corporate value
Content moderation
Initial reforms Misinformation and disinformation Increase in hate speech Pentagon leaks Child sexual abuse
Policy changes
Account suspensions ElonJet and journalists suspended State-affiliated media labeling Tweet views and messaging limits Announced removal of user blocking API changes
Developments
Verification program Revamp and rebrand Engagement with Musk's tweets Delaying links to external websites User engagement
Antisemitism controversies
Toggle Antisemitism controversies subsection Leo Frank disinformation Anti-ADL tweet campaign Musk amplification of antisemitism Media Matters analysis and lawsuit
Reactions and commentary
---
This would also be changing "Other developments" simply to "Developments". I'm sure there are further improvements to the structure of the page, so any feedback/proposals is appreciated. I'm aware there are other improvements/updates necessary for this page, especially if it is to be moved to X (social media), but I also think a better structure overall would help with that. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 10:02, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Move to X (social network) edit
Twitter under Elon Musk's management is now known as X, it would make sense for the article about the recent history of Twitter to use this name. Flameoguy (talk) 16:14, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
- Yes this has been proposed already: Talk:Twitter_under_Elon_Musk#Proposed_split_of_Twitter over the main talk page Talk:Twitter#Survey CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 16:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC)