 Article display preview: | This is a draft of a potential Signpost article, and should not be interpreted as a finished piece. Its content is subject to review by the editorial team and ultimately by JPxG, the editor in chief. Please do not link to this draft as it is unfinished and the URL will change upon publication. If you would like to contribute and are familiar with the requirements of a Signpost article, feel free to be bold in making improvements!
|
.jpg)
 Draft notes for copyeditors
| ||
Word count: (including headings and captions)
Contentedit
|
Twitter marks the spot
The acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk from 14 April to 28 October 2022, and its subsequent rebranding as X on 22 July 2023, have caused extensive debates on Wikipedia. Central to these discussions was whether this constituted the creation of an entirely new entity, and if so, how this should be reflected in articles. The article Twitter under Elon Musk raised concerns about Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons, as it was argued that it could appear to hold one person accountable for all the controversies (even when he was no longer the CEO).
The X-CEO
editWhen Musk announced Linda Yaccarino as his successor as CEO, editors discussed whether to continue covering his influence on the platform in Twitter under Elon Musk, or to restrict it to his tenure as CEO. The main concern was avoiding content duplication with the main Twitter article, and deciding what updates should be included. The consensus was to focus the article on significant developments related to Musk's leadership and ownership. Any major news about Musk should be documented on this article, while general updates about Twitter's new leadership should go into the main Twitter article. The discussion also addressed the challenge of defining what constitutes "notable" content related to Musk versus general Twitter updates, to prevent redundancy.
To gather community input on a request for comment (RfC) discussed whether the article on Twitter during Elon Musk's tenure should adhere to the stricter standards for biographies of living persons (BLP), given its focus on Musk. BLP guidelines, which require careful sourcing for content about living individuals, were under debate as to whether they applied to the entire article, or just the parts mentioning Musk. There was also concern about the potential for content forks, and how to handle overlapping information with the main Twitter article, particularly regarding sensitive allegations and the reliability of sources. The consensus was that BLP policies should apply to the whole article, due to its focus on Musk. It was generally agreed that updates should focus on Musk's leadership and ownership of Twitter, with significant events documented in the article, while general updates under new leadership should be incorporated into the main Twitter article.
Snowstorm
editEarly requests to rename the article "Twitter" were consistently rejected, due to the rebranding being incomplete, and the name remaining widely recognized. These early discussions were quickly closed, via the snowball clause, in order to not exhaust community time. Title change proposals, including variations like "X (social network)", were also rejected. Strong consensus was to keep the article's old title until the rebranding was fully realized and adopted. Despite Musk's rebranding efforts, these earlier discussions on this matter closed with a consensus that "Twitter" was still the more recognizable and commonly used name.
The repeated nature of these proposals — and their consistent failure — led some editors to suggest a moratorium on future renaming requests pending more definitive evidence of a change in the situation. There was some support for this. Some contributors favoured a shorter one of around three months, with some saying six months would be excessive. The consensus leant towards allowing an exception if the official domain actually changed to x.com. The proposed moratorium was seen as a way to balance avoiding constant debate with allowing flexibility to respond to significant changes.
When Twitter officially renamed itself, a move request was made. This proposal's opponents contended that "Twitter" was more recognizable, that it was used more prominently in reliable sources, and that an immediate change could confuse users and obscure the article. Some suggested a compromise, like splitting the article into sections, or creating separate entries for Twitter and X.
In a similar discussion, a request to move Twitter under Elon Musk to X (social network) argued that the substantial changes under Musk, including new features and a shift in company culture, warranted a distinct article for X, to avoid confusion and ensure a clear historical separation (similar to other rebranded companies). Some opposition argued that X is essentially the same platform as Twitter, albeit under new management, and that creating separate articles could cause confusion and redundancy. Some argued that the core nature of the social network remains unchanged, making a single, continuous article more suitable. A compromise was suggested by keeping the Twitter article focused on its history up to 2022 while creating a new article for X, aiming to balance historical accuracy with practical readability and editorial consistency.
The article was moved and a subsequent move review was opened as it was thought that the move from Twitter under Elon Musk to X (social network) was made prematurely without full consensus, with 29 out of 49 comments supporting and 20 opposing the change. The decision was defended by the mover, citing personal judgment and perceived majority support. This approach was seen to have overlooked the need for a clear, policy-based consensus and relied on a narrow interpretation. They contended that the change, which also suggested a shift in content scope, might cause confusion and was made without fully addressing concerns about whether 'Twitter' and 'X' should be distinct entities. The closer of the move review defaulted the page to its original name and the the move discussion was reopened.
As the discussion continued, supporters for changing the name platform argued that the substantial transformations—including new features, policies, and management changes—justify the creation of distinct articles. This would allow for a clearer distinction between the historical Twitter and the current X. Some opponents view Twitter and X as the same platform under different names, warning that such a division might mislead readers into perceiving them as separate entities when X is merely a rebranding of Twitter. Proposed solutions include either maintaining a single article with a section dedicated to the rebranding or creating a new article for X while preserving Twitter's historical context.
Determine the value of x
editMany discussions have been held regarding whether to split content related to Twitter's history before and after Musk's acquisition, with proposals to reorganize the content to reflect the platform's transformation. Options have included merging and moving sections, splitting the history into separate articles, or retaining a unified history. Creating new articles which split the history of Twitter was suggested and some participants argue that splitting the history section prematurely could disrupt the consensus process and weaken the comprehensiveness of the main Twitter article, which relies on history for context. Others supported the split, asserting that Twitter's history is substantial enough to merit a standalone article. Concerns about content duplication across Twitter-related pages have been raised, with suggestions to carefully plan how information is distributed to avoid redundancy.
A discussion was held to determine whether the rebranding should influence the introduction of the article as "Twitter, officially known as X since July 2023" or "X commonly referred by its former name, Twitter." A recent RfC debated the most accurate disambiguator to describe Twitter's rebranding as X, with options like "Rebranded to X," "Renamed to X," and others being considered. The terms 'rebranded' and 'renamed' had support, with proponents of 'rebranded' arguing it best reflects the platform's continuity under a new name, avoiding implications that Twitter has ceased to exist.
Discuss this story