Talk:TikTok/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2020

Jam

Uf

37.111.135.52 (talk) 08:00, 18 April 2020 (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. Jamietw (talk) 08:15, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Should we make a TikTok songs list article?

Many, if not most, of the songs that you find on the charts now are there as a result of their popularity of TikTok (see Category:TikTok songs). Often its small SoundCloud rappers in their bedrooms (Old Town Road, Roxanne, Lalala, Death Bed, etc.) who make pretty average songs which become exponentially viral and streamed by teens who are obsessed with the associated dances/memes etc. So much so that top pop stars are beginning to design their songs for TikTok success (Yummy (Justin Bieber song), Toosie Slide etc.). Would it be a bad idea to create a "List of songs popularized by TikTok" article since the app is, in essence, carrying a large portion of the pop music industry on its back... or should we just leave it as a category for now? heyitsben!! ^talk 11:17, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I think there could be merit in the idea of an article for TikTok songs if there's substantial news coverage of it being a trend and the rest of it. As in, we'd need news sources for basically every song listed on the article. Ss112 11:42, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, I think it's pretty difficult to classify what exactly is a TikTok song and what isn't. Of course, the ones you mentioned are all very obviously songs that gained popularity from TikTok, but we have all the older songs that are used on TikTok at the moment, but they were already popular songs in the past and sometimes they are edited or distorted. Such examples include "Poker Face", "Love Me Like You" and "If U Seek Amy". Due to the app's flexibility with "original sounds", the line can get a little bit blurry here and there. And, we also have the older ones that are not distorted or edited, that still gained popularity on TikTok due to their challenges, such as "I'm Just a Kid" and "Cannibal". Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 12:50, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

To add on, there are also songs like "Don't Start Now" and "Blinding Lights", both songs that have been used for dances on TikTok, but they got on TikTok after they became huge. Would these still be considered TikTok songs? Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 12:55, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@Nahnah4: I had the same thought... Almost every song that has been released digitally can be accessed on the app, so any song could be a "TikTok song". And yes, old songs like "Cannibal", "If U Seek Amy" and "I'm Just a Kid" become popular on the app. However very few chart as a result, so therefore I think that we should draw the line at the level of international success. If a list is made, an important criterion is that song must have charted internationally and not just regionally. There must also be an indication that the song's (often rapid) success was generated primarily, if not solely, by TikTok and nothing else. heyitsben!! ^talk 14:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@HeyitsBen: If we are talking about songs that became popular from TikTok without any prior large-scale commercial success, then I guess it is fine if we make an article with that definition - but it should have a more specific title other than "TikTok song". I did add "Love Me Like You" to Category:TikTok songs because I keep hearing it on the app, but there just isn't a specific origin I could find for it. I'm not sure if it should continue staying under the category (assuming the category is for every song that has been a "TikTok" song). Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 15:12, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@Nahnah4: The category should be for any song that gained popularity on the app and had news coverage to indicate so (e.g. "I'm Just A Kid" had articles by both Time and Fox News about the TikTok challenge etc.). The list would be for those songs that gained international success and could have potentially propelled the respective artist into worldwide recognition (Lil Nas X, Doja Cat, Benee, Powfu etc.) heyitsben!! ^talk 10:39, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

@HeyitsBen: I'm fine with this idea. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 13:17, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Added sources?

This is my bibliography page that I added new sources to.. Hopefully they would be of some use!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SharonYubinKang/TikTok/Bibliography?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_bibliography SharonYubinKang (talk) 03:52, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2020

Fatalities caused by TikTok

There have been multiple TikTok related accidents that have resulted in users losing their lives or severely injuring themselves while filming. The most common types of TikToks that led to these deaths and injuries included stunts, challenges, weapons, vehicles, and suicides. Monitored by the website, "TikTok Death Tracker," an aggregator of news stories regarding these fatalities, these incidents have most commonly occurred in countries such as Australia, Pakistan, Canada, USA, Brazil, and Kuwait. The most recent death on 11 March 2020, took place in India where a TikTok craze caused a newly married man to be crushed by tractor while performing a stunt in hopes to gain fame on the app. Cyberbullying via the ‘Comments’ section in TikTok can instigate the worsening of mental health issues, and cause self-harm and self-mutilation in susceptible individuals. The first death recorded on 19 October 2018, was in India as well where a Chennai youth male committed suicide from a vehicle due to being bullied for dressing up as a woman in his TikTok videos. The "TikTok Death Tracker" website was created to promote awareness of safety concerns to ensure users are being safe when posting and viewing content. TikTok claims to be a secure and safe app if users follow the terms and conditions that appear on a user's screen when creating an account. Suleman015 (talk) 04:05, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

References

@Suleman015:  Done, with trimmed references. GoingBatty (talk) 04:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2020

The app discourages performing dangerous stunts or challenges. However, numerous participants have succumbed to the influence of popular trends and have completed viral challenges on the TikTok app. The TikTok creators developed a modification in the app's algorithm to ban certain hashtags such as ones that promote things such as eating disorders and self harming behaviors to cultivate a safe and healthy media environment. Not all of these trends appear outwardly dangerous at first glance. A trend referred to as the "nutmeg challenge" has recently gone viral with 46.4 million views under the hashtag on the app as of April 2020. The challenge involves the creator ingesting two to four tablespoons of nutmeg often in a beverage like water or milk. The high that may come alongside this is real, but can have devastating health consequences. According to the American Association for Clinical Chemistry, the consumption of the spice can result in not only hallucinations, but also agitation, hypothermia, numbness, blurred vision, nausea, dry mouth, coma, and death. TikTok released a public statement after the trend went viral noting, "the safety and well-being of our users is a top priority at TikTok. As we make clear in our Community Guidelines, we do not allow content that displays, promotes, or encourages drugs or drug consumption. We remove any such reported content. "Some content may not be allowed to be uploaded if deemed inappropriate or against the terms and conditions. This restriction helps protect others from viewing disturbing content while scrolling through the main page. Suleman015 (talk) 05:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

The most recent death on 11 March 2020, took place in India where a TikTok craze caused a newly married man to be crushed by tractor while performing a stunt in hopes to gain fame on the app. Cyberbullying via the ‘Comments’ section in TikTok can instigate the worsening of mental health issues, and cause self-harm and self-mutilation in susceptible individuals. The first death recorded on 19 October 2018, was in India as well where a Chennai youth male committed suicide from a vehicle due to being bullied for dressing up as a woman in his TikTok videos. Suleman015 (talk) 06:21, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Both requests combined. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It seems as if you simply copied material already in the article. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:21, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2020

Aj actor johib (talk) 05:41, 13 May 2020 (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. – Majavah ^(t/c) 05:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Background

Hlo Rohitmishra 2 (talk) 03:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Wrongful Ban of Nick Fuentes

Nick Fuentes, a Paleoconservative Podcaster, was wrongfully banned in late April of 2020. Multiple followers of his were also banned without warning. Supporters of his speculate it's because TikTok is controlled by the Chinese Government due to the fact that China is authoritarian and anti-capitalist. His Post on Twitter after he was banned.

 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. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Section on Youtube vs. Tik-Tok controversy in India

Indian Tik-Toker Amir Siddiqui made a video demeaning youtubers and making several claims and showing that tik-tokers are superior to youtubers. In reaction, several Indian youtubers released videos on the topic-"Youtube vs Tik-Tok", most of which showed how the points made by Amir were wrong and pointless. One such video was of CarryMinati, which roasted Amir for his illogical comments. Several popular Indian youtubers supported CarryMinati(a.k.a. Ajey Nagar). This video soon gained popularity, gaining around 73M views and 10M likes on Youtube, becoming second most liked video in the world. Tags like #carryminati and #bantiktokinindia were trending on Twitter in India. After this video was released, CarryMinati gained around 6M subscribers in a week,the largest number gained in a week till date. However, this video was soon removed from Youtube on grounds of harrassment and bullying. In reaction to this, people took to the social media and started asking people to rate Tik-Tok app on Google Play Store with 1 star and also report it. Several memes were also made. Even after deleting, several other youtube channels and Facebook featured the deleted video. #justiceforcarry was trending on Twitter. As of 19 May 2020, Tik-Tok rating has fallen down to 2 out of 5 stars on Google Play Store. Please make a section on this topic in the wikipedia page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.110.242.5 (talk) 17:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2020

Can someone change the description under "when created"? I think it is unneeded to explain that it was made 3 years ago.

The exact date is provided, therefore commenting "3 years ago" is not necessary. And it also makes the entire page look very childish. If readers cannot count how many years it has been available, they probably cannot use the app anyway.

Furthermore, in case you are still undecided about removing "3 years"..... The only way this could be beneficial is if it had a live clock that is running full time to show you how many years, months, weeks, days, hours, and seconds it has aged.

But to do that, you would need to know the EXACT second that it was added to the google play store.... Also, you would have to know exactly when it was added to the apple store or however those users obtain apps...

Then you would have 2 clocks running to show how old it is exactly on each platform. You may need to add a 3rd or 4th clock also, depending on if it is available on PC, or possibly Linux?

So, as you see there is no reason for any of this. Please just remove where it says "3 years" after the exact release date.

Thank You. 2600:1004:B15A:97DB:4828:D73A:24E2:D8C8 (talk) 14:47, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: This is populated by a template and is standard style for articles on companies and websites. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Paragraph on deaths caused by TikTok

Hello, I work at ByteDance and want to suggest some changes to this article. I understand Wikipedia’s conflict of interest policies, as well as the policies on consensus and neutral point of view and will respect the consensus that results from any discussion I am a part of here.

My first request is for the removal of the “Deaths caused by TikTok” section. The notion of the entire section appears to be that TikTok is notably responsible for causing deaths on a large scale, an idea that is not supported by reliable sources. The “TikTok Death Tracker” is the only source cited, and the website does not appear to be reliable by Wikipedia’s standards.

Thank you, Bkenny44 (talk) 14:21, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Support. I also feel that the website "tiktokdeath.com" in source is not reliable and many sentences in "Fatalities caused by TikTok" haven't sources. RuiyuShen 03:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Bkenny44  Declined Hi I understand it's unsourced. However, i suspect this will create undue weight. Reliable sources may come by. {{replyto}} Can I Log In's (talk) page 05:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@Can I Log In: Thanks for replying. I don't see how the idea that "reliable sources may come by" can overcome Wikipedia's requirement for verifiability. If there are no proper sources for this content, it needs to be removed. If someone objects to the removal, the burden of proof to demonstrate that the information is verifiable should be on that editor.

As for undue weight, no weight should be given to false and unverifiable information, in particular when the allegation is as sensationalist and defamatory as "Fatalities caused by TikTok." Please consider rethinking your decision on this request. Thanks, Bkenny44 (talk) 15:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@Bkenny44: We have already added citation needed templates. If these templates still exist after a month, I will remove the paragraphs without source. RuiyuShen 22:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Support removal Poorly sourced section giving undue weight to present something as a phenomenon. Also, the onus to provide citations is on those advocating for keeping content. If someone disputes and removes information, it requires citations to be added in. Nowhere is it practice to say "let's wait" for content that has been proposed for removal. Opencooper (talk) 04:48, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Update @RuiyuShen: About a month has gone by since the "more citations needed" tag was added to this section. Since then, no reliable sources were added that justify a section presenting "Injuries and fatalities while making TikTok videos" as if it were a phenomenon (as Opencooper aptly put it above), so this section should be removed.

Whatever verifiable information can be salvaged from this section should be merged into other appropriate sections within the article. Thank you, Bkenny44 (talk) 12:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Bkenny44, I think the problems have been solved and no reason can show that tikitokdeath.com is an unreliable source. So we shouldn't remove this paragraph. If you still have some questions or advice, please reply to me again. Best wishes. RuiyuShen 14:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@RuiyuShen: I don't understand. There was clear consensus above (including from you) that tiktokdeath.com is not a reliable source. It does not meet any of Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources: it is not published by a reputable organization and it does not have any "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." I would be happy to hear from others here if they disagree with this assessment of tiktokdeath.com's unreliability. Bkenny44 (talk) 16:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2020

TikTok should be enjoyed by people ages 13 and up to protect younger viewers from harassment or inappropriate content. BoykinSpaniels24 (talk) 22:10, 20 June 2020 (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. Darren-M talk 22:17, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Correction on Kevin Mayer starting date

I noticed that the article states that "Since May 2020, Kevin Mayer is CEO of TikTok." Actually, he started as CEO on June 1, 2020. There are lots of sources for this, including this Washington Post article, to name one. Thanks, Bkenny44 (talk) 16:51, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@Bkenny44:  Done! GoingBatty (talk) 01:16, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Puffy AI

Heh, my "reason" strings got a bit out of control there, so I'm copying them here as well.

Compared to other consumer algorithms such as YouTube and Netflix with a list of recommended videos, TikTok interprets the user's individual preferences and provides content that they would enjoy.

{{failed verification|reason=the word "enjoy" does not appear; Facebook has many (mis)features that people tolerate rather than enjoy, because they value the platform as a whole; the only real standard here for user acceptance (beyond the highly subjective decree) appears to be that it hasn't actually driven users away; additionally, the only way it's not a "recommendation" is when you are 100% forced to continue, though it might indeed be a solo recommendation, rather than a plurality}}{{better source needed|reason="biased corporate blog with a dog in the ring, and prose such as 'Yet the firm has contrived to channelise the very cause of its scrape as the tool for its solution.'"}}

— MaxEnt 16:50, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Potential Splitting of Article into 'Censorship of TikTok'

As you most likely are aware, several governments have threatened to censor TikTok including the United States government. The Indian government has already censored TikTok and this is documented in a small section at the bottom of the article. Should more governments censor TikTok, I think we should create an article similar to Censorship of Twitter. Thoughts? JMonkey2006 (talk) 11:44, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

• Strong Support I agree with JMonkey2006, it should be split along with Douyin. Rushtheeditor (talk) 2:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Under "National Security Concerns-United States" the final line of the second paragraph reads, "Legislation was subsequently introduced in the U.S. Senate that would prohibit all federal employees from using or downloading TikTok.[129]" The phrasing here may be misleading; the source cited (129) only discusses a potential ban on US Government employees downloading TikTok on government-owned devices. Source 129 makes no mention of unilaterally banning US Government employees from using TikTok. Given that the current phrasing may lead readers to inaccurately conclude that the US Government is considering banning federal employees from using TikTok on their privately owned devices in addition to government owned devices, it might be useful to change the phrasing.

I would recommend editing the sentence to read, "Legislation was subsequently introduced in the U.S. Senate that would prohibit all federal employees from using or downloading TikTok on devices issued by the U.S. government.[129]" for greater clarity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.26.74 (talk) 02:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Security Issue

FYI - iOS14 reveals that TikTok may snoop clipboard contents every few keystrokes --- • Sbmeirow • Talk • 10:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

• from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23634138
• MAY snoop on clipboard contents? Really? I think it is fairly well established that it definitely does that. (Unless you are suggesting that iOS14 is wrong about TikTok copying clipboard contents every ~3 or so keystrokes?) Whether it actually does anything with the snooped information is theoretically arguable, but doing so raises the entirely reasonable question of 'if it isn't doing anything with that information then why is it gathering it in the first place?' 202.142.134.109 (talk) 13:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

"Chinese app"

Why does it say that it is a Chinese app when it doesnt say in SnapChat page that it is an American app? The TikTok app doesnt have a nationality. Anti-Chinese racism/discrimination?!. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.35.8.187 (talk) 23:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with the wording. Tik Tok is an app from ByteDance, which is a Chinese company. It's not racism to call it a Chinese app. It's also not racist to call Snapchat an American app either. CountyCountry (talk) 06:45, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

It is fair to say TikTok/Douyin is a Chinese service like Twitter and Facebook are said to be American service--凡其_Fanchy 00:07, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2020

Change "TikTok will be banned in the United States on November 12, 2020" to something more accurate such as "The US President has threatened to ban TikTok in the United States on November 12, 2020", as the related reference indicates no imminent ban nor details on how that ban might be implemented. 98.247.224.6 (talk) 19:05, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

 Already done P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 22:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

attention span concerns section. unsourced fake quote

the dubious cliché phrase "children brains are still developing" as a reason people are worried about 15 second videos is nowhere to be found in the article cited. I would put a [source?] Tag on that paragraph. More objectivity on Wikipedia please. This is not an free for all reddit opinion forum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:A69F:7C00:7820:9734:96C5:BA29 (talk) 12:41, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

"McCarthyism" link in See Also

While a pithy (if over-stated) way to share an opinion that US calls for restricting TikTok amount to a kind of McCarthyism, I'm not sure including "McCarthyism" in the See Also page is up to Wikipedia's editing standards for relevance or neutrality. Perhaps it could be justified for inclusion under "See Also" if the point whoever included the link is trying to draw from inference is included as a well-cited summary of such criticisms as present in journalism, acadameia, etc. in the article itself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:A820:AA50:74AC:12D8:A4F1:E7CB (talk) 16:35, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. So removed. El_C 16:36, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2020

2402:8100:2825:F388:B365:3C1B:2FF1:2139 (talk) 03:27, 8 August 2020 (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!  (Say hi!) 13:17, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2020

Change "Proposed ban by Trump administration" to "Ban by Trump administration" as the ban has already been imposed. Intrinsicvalue (talk) 17:55, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Ban comes into effect if TikTok is not sold in 90 days. See [1]. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 04:31, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2020

There is some false information on this link, and I would appreciate it if I could fix it. 2604:6000:B001:1300:7588:B9E8:244:5DB8 (talk) 21:02, 17 August 2020 (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. Cannolis (talk) 22:24, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Should we make Douyin a separate page?

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.

---

We all know that Douyin (the Chinese TikTok app) redirects to TikTok. But there is hardly any Douyin information on TikTok. Some people want information on the Chinese Edition. I think we should either split Douyin into a separate page or put more Douyin information on the TikTok page. MrCoolGuy159 (talk) 20:09, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

• Weak support While I do agree this is a separate topic to be covered by a different app, the app's framework is essentially the same. Take a look at WeChat, an app with two separate servers: one for China, and one for the rest of the world. They have the same framework both inside and outside of China, just separate servers. Same with TikTok. Aasim 20:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
• Comment for Awesome Aasim Yes, I understand. Most apps are the same worldwide. Maybe not a split. We could possibly put more information about Douyin on the TikTok page. MrCoolGuy159 (talk) 21:18, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support for separate page. Having two pages, one for TikTok and a separate page for Douyin will make it eminently clear that these are two different apps, even if owned by the same company, with one limited to use in China (Douyin) and the other (TikTok) for the rest of the world. Their histories, usage and other facts can then be easily kept separate, even if there is a small overlap of history. The truth is, since there is already a redirect for Douyin that points here, no real split would be needed. Only to add content to the redirect page and stop the redirect. I think it would make for a clearer, more compelling, user experience. 207.177.224.108 (talk) 14:48, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support for separate page. Tiktok is very different from Douyin. The information has a big difference. So I think it is necessary to separate them. --$\sideset {_{R}^{u}}{_{u}^{y}}\prod _{\clubsuit }^{i}$ ${}_{S}^{h}\!\Omega _{n}^{e}$ 04:10, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
• Weak support It's the same app --Mvvnlightbae (talk) 20:05, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Mvvnlightbae. Emphrase (talk) 20:40, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support for the creation of a separate Douyin article. Unlike other apps such as WeChat, accounts and posts on TikTok cannot be seen on Douyin and vice versa. Although post-Musical.ly TikTok is nearly identical to Douyin in design and structure (owing to both being owned by ByteDance), the two apps function as practically independent from one another while still being managed by the same parent company. Khu'hamgaba Kitap ^talk 20:08, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose It's the same service operated in two different regions under two different names. It'd be tantamount to making separate articles for Family Computer and Nintendo Entertainment System. Information on Douyin should instead be expanded upon in the TikTok article. Sonictrey (talk) 10:18, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
• Unless there are significant differences in functionalities, I would Strongly Oppose. Compare Super Famicom v. Famicom or the English and Japanese dubs of Sailor Moon to say Super Sentai versus the Power Rangers. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:57, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose – Information on Douyin would fit in this article, no need for a separate page. JE98 (talk) 14:37, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support because they are separate services. Lycopene579 (talk) 01:59, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose as stated above. Nate 2169 ^Talk
  _{Contributions} 00:28, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

• Strong Support —Transfer the article into Douyin for chinese version and Merge TikTok with Musical.ly for global version. Manasbose (talk) 15:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

  @Manasbose: musical.ly and TikTok are not the same thing. The service musical.ly does not exist anymore because its content got migrated to TikTok. Aasim 17:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose we can have separate content on Douyin in TikTok itself. I don't think there are huge differences between TikTok and Douyin. Abishe (talk) 06:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Abishe. 131.111.5.183 (talk) 06:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support for separate page. We have the same problem on this article where outdated info about Douyin got mixed with TikTok info, which doesn't make any sense. These are two separate apps, with two distinct user bases and a different history. Two distinct articles will make things less confusing. --Deansfa (talk) 13:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose It's the same app. However, there can be a separate section containing the small differences between TikTok and "Douyin". ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 09:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose I do agree that more information about Douyin should be added but I do not think there is a much of a difference between TikTok and Douyin besides the legal differences due to Chinese law we could mention the small differences on this article but there is not enough differences to create a new article and TikTok is more internationally known then Douyin so renaming the article is not a good idea 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 15:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Same app, different language. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 10:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Support They are different apps. Laysoo (talk) 12:54, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
  • How are they different? I believe that the only surface differences are language. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:04, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • As mentioned in the article, TikTok and Douyin are two separate apps, with a wall between the two services. Contents are not accessible between the two apps. That is not the case for WeChat/Weixin, which arguably is the same app for different regions, with contents accessible between the two versions. Hge437 (talk) 17:43, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• Strong Support The introductory segment of the page is very dense, with too much unnecessary detail at this point in the page. It's not a great on-ramp to the article; it's pretty off-putting, in fact. Anything that can streamline it would be a good thing! Zedembee (talk) 04:29, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support Split it out for now and can merge it back if it doesn't split well --Lena Virginia Birse (talk) 23:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• Strong Support it should be split, if it doesn't work we can merge it back. Rushtheeditor (talk) 2:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Same app, but different languages. No point — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2019AlwaysLit (talk • contribs) 16:21, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per all previous comments above, they're the same app. JE98 (talk) 20:21, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Support. They are not the same app. It's like saying Google China is the same company as Google and does not deserve its own article. ALL the issues and controversies applied to Tit Tok aren't applied to Douyin. As well, the user base is entirely different. You can't say Dilraba Dilmurat is on TitTok; she apparently isn't. As well, even app functionaries have begun to be different. To conclude, they are entirely different apps owned by the same company. Douyin needs its own article for Douyin-specific content. Sherwilliam (talk) 20:02, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:OVERLAP. TikTok is "more or less the same app as Douyin, but the content is free from the watchful eyes of Chinese government censors". WeChat does not have a separate article from Weixin, despite the fact that WeChat and Weixin have different names and use two censorship systems. The same applies to other social networks with different localizations for different regions but just one article on the English Wikipedia, including LinkedIn/Lingying, which also has different censorship policies and slightly different features. — Newslinger talk 10:06, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Support. It's only natural that it be split and, if the split doesn't happen now, we will be back here again in the near future seeking a new consensus. Mercy11 (talk) 22:49, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose. I am ok with both, but for now this article is not long enough to justify the split. Just add more Douyin information and if later it becomes too long, a split would be good. --凡其_Fanchy 20:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose. I'm on the fence about split, would need more of a justification to do it, like more of a deep dive analysis of Douyin.--NicoARicoA (talk) 21:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Tiktok and Douyin are the same service for different regions. Different sections would be more appropriate than wasting another article on the same subject.Alexceltare2 (talk) 13:32, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Tiktok is the english name for a Chinese service, same as WeChat is to the name Weixin. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:40, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. TikTok and Douyin are the same app. The only difference is that Douyin runs on a different server. Maka, the Two Star Meister! (talk) 11:20, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. Possible support if the US version creates a significant fork from the ban. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. Since there is currently not much information about Douyin, making an article about Douyin wouldn't be helpful. Would wait until an analysis of Douyin is good enough to justify for its own article. Thissecretperson (talk) 01:15, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per Sonictrey and Newslinger. More information about Douyin can be added to this page. Yaguzi (talk) 01:33, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per points made above. – DarkGlow (talk) 18:45, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. A-NEUN ⦾TALK⦾ 16:35, 29 August 2020 (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.

Alt/Elite TikTok

I'm not expert on TikTok, but shouldn't this article have a section on Alt/Elite TikTok? I don't have a major interest myself, but I wanted to link from an article to Elite TikTok or Alt TikTok and discovered they aren't even redirects, which made me check to see if the TikTok article even mentioned it so I could create redirects, but without any coverage at all I kind of hate to create them. —valereee (talk) 14:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Since Vine was gone to far, too many people use the app as always

E-girls and mi pan is not addictive but for its own fun it was unknowingly playing! AdwenKnowItAll (talk) 18:54, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Information

I have added a lot of information. [2] If that is too much information then please discuss it here first. Please do not remove it in one go as it took me a lot of time to find the information. Thank you. Fortliberty (talk) 08:28, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Ownership

A section on the ownership of Tiktok or Douyin could be made. Thoughts? Manabimasu (talk) 00:52, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Bans in India

Please change the heading "Current ban in India" to "Bans in India," as the section contains two subsections ("2019 provisional ban" and "2020 ban"), the first of which is not a "current" ban. Thank you, Bkenny44 (talk) 21:37, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done Altamel (talk) 01:04, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

"Country bans" section

The section is getting kind of large and probably too detailed for a general article about TikTok. How about moving most of it to an article like Censorship of TikTok (along the same lines as Censorship of YouTube and Censorship of Wikipedia)? We could provide a brief summary here explaining where it's banned, how it isn't banned in the U.S. (at least not at the moment) and the resulting business partnerships with Oracle and Walmart. ^Falling_Gravity 05:08, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 September 2020

Under the Douyin section; - In the sign up process, Douyin mainly involves: mobile phone number, WeChat, QQ, Toutiao and Weibo account. Accounts are generally divided into personal numbers and corporation’s blue V.(authorised by Douyin official)

- Tiktok's sign up process mainly include: overseas mobile phone number, facebook account, ins account, line account, kakokao account and Twitter account. Accounts are mainly personal accounts, and there are also corporate or brand authentication accounts, but there is no public authentication channel.

Under the Users section; - Creators often have the potential to make a profit from these videos, especially larger creators through sponsorships. With major corporations paying content creators large sums of money in order to promote a product, TikTok allows for essentially anybody with a platform to earn a living.

Douyin however allows users to make money through; Taobao and Jingdong selling goods through Douyin windows; Creators can add goods from assured shops in the merchandise window and doing ads. Nlromanic (talk) 02:47, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Please re-activate this request when you have a specific source we can cite. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 12:40, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect sentence about Oracle/Walmart deal

In the "Expansion in other markets" section, the final sentence incorrectly states that TikTok "signed a deal with Oracle and Walmart." In fact, to date the deal has only been proposed, not signed. In addition, this sentence does not belong in the "Expansion in other markets" section. For both of the above reasons, please remove the sentence. Thank you, Bkenny44 (talk) 15:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a source for the deal being proposed but not signed? Most of what I see has the deal signed--FeldBum (talk)

@FeldBum: The NPR source you linked to says nothing about the deal being signed, only that President Trump approved the proposal in concept. The two sides reached a preliminary agreement, but no deal was signed or finalized. And either way, the sentence is out of place in this section of the Wikipedia article. Bkenny44 (talk) 17:50, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

The line needs to go somewhere; it's a major point in the company history. I'll read some more sources, but the ideal solve here would be to change the language, not remove the line. --FeldBum (talk) 17:59, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Take a look now. Graywalls (talk) 06:32, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2020

An update to the current listed iOS file size of the app per the official app store page: 345.9 MB Qpgdy (talk) 17:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Declined. Stale - no RS. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 22:01, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2020

Tik Tok is owned by Walmart and Oracle YTTHEBEAST (talk) 18:43, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Declined. Stale - no RS. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 22:02, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2020

On Saturday September 19, 2020, President Trump approved a deal between TikTok's parent company, ByteDance, and Oracle. This approval temporarily averts a ban on TikTok in US app stores. EditorAtLarge23 (talk) 14:38, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

References

 Done P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 22:04, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Important info missing from Misty Hong lawsuit section

According to the source cited (184): "The app also created a summary of private information about her including biometric information it had taken from videos she created but never posted." Wikipedia article doesn't mention she was using the app and makes it sound like TikTok was accessing biometric data used for unlocking phone.

Pahtrihk (talk) 06:01, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2020

2402:8100:3968:323F:0:0:0:1 (talk) 00:53, 6 October 2020 (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. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:00, 6 October 2020 (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:

• ByteDance Logo.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect math at top

Heyyyyyooooo, about Kevin Mayers tenure, at the top of the article it says he came on June 2020, and left at the end of August 2020, but it says four months long tenure. Can yall fix it for me i donät have an established account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.52.155 (talk) 17:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Describing TikTok as "Chinese"

Hello everyone. The opening sentence of this article refers to TikTok as a "Chinese video-sharing social networking service." But this is not accurate. While TikTok is a Chinese-owned app, as it is owned (at least for the moment!) by ByteDance, a Chinese company, TikTok itself is based in Los Angeles and the app is available everywhere except China. More significantly, for Wikipedia policy purposes, most of the premier reliable sources refer to TikTok as a "Chinese-owned" app, not as a Chinese app - and this distinction is critical. (See: New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post and more.)

And even if many reliable publications casually use the phrase "Chinese app" in headlines for brevity's sake, the phrase's usage here is inaccurate and misleading, especially in the context of the ongoing discussions of a potential imminent change in the company's ownership.

In light of this, I propose that the word "Chinese" be removed from the lead sentence. (This change was actually implemented by Loginnigol in May and again in August by CentreLeftRight, but both times the edits were reverted with no discussion.) Bkenny44 (talk) 14:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

You should be more engaging. I asked you to take a look at the change at the Walmart/Oracle deal, but not a word if it looks right or not. Graywalls (talk) 19:38, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Graywalls. Sorry about that - I didn't realize your "take a look" comment was directed at me personally. To answer your question, the main issue I had with the way the sentence was written was resolved by your edit, which changed "the app signed a deal" to "a deal was confirmed." Thank you! Bkenny44 (talk) 20:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Graywalls, thank you for following through with this. Since then, someone reverted your edit (without discussing here first) with an edit summary pointing to the fact that other articles about apps include "country of origin" in the lead.

But it's a mistake to follow this questionable precedent (see: WP:IGNOREPRECEDENT). It makes very little sense to use "country of origin" as the most prominent adjective in the lead sentence of any article about a piece of software, and it makes even less sense to use it for TikTok, which is based in the U.S. and is used by people around the world - notably excluding China.

Since I'm not editing the article directly due to my conflict of interest, please (again) take out Chinese from the first sentence, except as a descriptor for ByteDance, TikTok's parent company. Thank you, Bkenny44 (talk) 16:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@Yeungkahchun:, you removed some properly sourced contents. Please explain your change here. Thank you, Graywalls (talk) 16:40, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

The lead was way too long, so I tried to summarize it. Especially the part about Trump's attempted ban & India's ban. Most of this information is available in the rest of the article. Also, the information about the CEO was outdated (Kevin Mayer is no longer the CEO, Vanessa Pappas is now the CEO), thus I updated it Yeungkahchun (talk) 19:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@Bkenny44 and Yeungkahchun:, So, from what I understand, Douyin and TikTok isn't just the difference of language interface, but similar yet different software. So, regarding the opening "TikTok (Chinese: 抖音; pinyin: Dǒuyīn) is a viral Chinese video-sharing social networking service owned by a Chinese company ByteDance" perhaps the contents in parenthesis shouldn't be in the same sentence so as to not create the impression they're the same. As far as the labeling of Chinese video sharing, after looking at SnapChat and Instagram, this seems to be reasonable. Bkenny44, since your requested version has been reverted, it's considered challenged, so you should build a consensus here before requesting to have it put into the way you want again. Graywalls (talk) 20:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@Graywalls: I tried building consensus before adding the "request edit" template. I only added the template after putting up my original post and waiting for more than two weeks with no response. I'm willing to start an RfC on this point if that is what's necessary to build consensus, because including TikTok's country of origin here is just wrong, despite the examples from Facebook, SnapChat, Instagram and others. There are plenty of other examples, like Skype, Signal (software), Telegram (software) and Tencent QQ that don't use country of origin in the lead sentence, and that is the model that should be followed here and probably across the board for apps. Bkenny44 (talk) 14:41, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Article Lacking Specifics of Orace/Walmart deal

Bytedace has announced a deal with Oracle and Walmart, where Bytedance will spin it's Non-China operations of it's Premier App TikTok into a separate corporation called TikTok Global, with Oracle to own 12.5% of that corporation, Walmart to own 7.5% of that corporation, and Bytedance to retain 80% of the equity of that aforementioned corporation. Its headquarters shall be in the United States and will host its namesake application on Oracle's Servers in the United States. Bytedance has also said they plan on taking that corporation public in 2021.

Although that deal has not been finalized, Trump has announced that he approves of it in principle. The government of China although is uncertain about such a transaction.

The specifics of that such agreement should be in the article somewhere. Though it is subject to change in a matter of time.

Here's the source: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/09/everything-we-know-so-far-about-oracle-not-actually-buying-tiktok/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chelldog (talk • contribs) 17:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Section on users Charli & Dixie D'Amelio

This section, added yesterday, seems limited in its relevance and importance, as well as promotional. It adds to the generally bloated nature of this article. I added an inline relevance tag. (As additional minor points, how does Dixie get into the caption of a section about Charli, and there's a typo.) I would either delete it or boil it down to 1 sentence (not an entire section) using some material from its first and last sentences, eg, "The most followed TikTok user, Charli D'Amelio, reached the milestone of 100 million followers on November 22, 2020." Sullidav (talk) 16:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

More: there's already this sentence in the Users section, which already states the key info from my abbreviated sentence. So I would definitely delete the section on these users, and optionally add to the end of the sentence below ", who reached the milestone of 100 million followers on November 22, 2020" + citation.

Its users include Zach King,Loren Gray,Baby Ariel,Lisa and Lena,Will Smith, Dwayne Johnson, Brent Rivera, Addison Rae, Jason Derulo, Jennifer Lopez, Camila Cabello, Lilly Singh, Selena Gomez, Millie Bobby Brown, Noah Schnapp and Charli D'Amelio, the most-followed individual on the platform.

Sullidav (talk) 16:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I strongly agree that this section is unnecessary. I'm going to get rid of it for now; if anyone wants to put it back, look for my edit, but I don't see a need for it.To be continued, Harry — Say hello! 01:38, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Sullidav (talk) 16:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

New section on TikTok's impact on businesses

I would like to propose the addition of a new section titled "Economic value for businesses," situated between the sections on "User characteristics and behavior" and "Country bans and attempted bans." The section should have the following content:

Small businesses have used TikTok's platform to bring awareness to their product or service and to engage with a wider audience than they would otherwise be capable of reaching.

Some have used TikTok to connect with customers when engagement was difficult due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Partnerships between larger brands and TikTok influencers have resulted in immediate increases in app downloads and digital sales. When Dunkin' Donuts launched its collaboration with top TikTok influencer Charli D'Amelio on September 2, 2020, Dunkin' app downloads increased by 57% that day compared to its previous 90-day average.

In another example, Chipotle used TikTok to launch a "lid flip challenge," which asked users to post videos of themselves flipping their burrito bowl lids. The videos generated more than 100 million views and increased digital sales.

References

Thank you, Bkenny44 (talk) 19:25, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Bkenny44; I know this isn't the answer you were hoping for, but N Not done and not likely to be done, at least not without a substantial overhaul. The entire section strikes me as aimed at pitching TikTok to B2B customers, starting with the section header. Some of this could potentially be integrated into the main text if toned down, but as it stands, I think it's excessively promotional. Thank you for complying with our COI disclosure guidelines and best wishes, Blablubbs|talk 00:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Blablubbs. Since you suggested a substantial overhaul, I rewrote the request and tried to remove any traces of promotional language, leaving only neutral statements of fact about how and why businesses use TikTok, as reported in the sources. The proposed section is also shorter than before. I hope you can consider this rewrite with an open mind:

Section heading: Use by businesses

Small businesses have used TikTok to advertise and to reach an audience wider than the geographical region they would normally serve.

Some have used TikTok to connect with customers when engagement was difficult due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Notable collaborations between larger brands and top TikTok influencers have included Chipotle's partnership with David Dobrik in May 2019 and Dunkin' Donuts' partnership with Charli D'Amelio in September 2020.

References

Thanks again, Bkenny44 (talk) 17:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

RfC on "Chinese"

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This was a slightly messy discussion. It is easier to extract out the main point: most editors believed that the app should not be described as a Chinese app. Instead, editors believed that stating the ownership of the company (ByteDance) as Chinese would be more desirable, eg: "TikTok ... is a video-sharing social networking service owned by [the] Chinese company ByteDance."

This RfC only finds how the word "Chinese" should be placed in the opening sentence, rather than any other aspects of the sentence. There was some discussion on whether "viral" should be mentioned, which was not really the point of the original question, and hence only some participants addressed this. As such, this RfC close does not find any consensus on that matter. It is worth noting that where this was addressed by participants, there was opposition to using the word "viral". ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:51, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

---

How should the TikTok article open?

• Option 1: "TikTok is a viral video-sharing social networking service owned by Chinese company ByteDance."
• Option 2: "TikTok is a viral Chinese video-sharing social networking service owned by Chinese company ByteDance"
• Option 3: A different solution

Bkenny44 (talk) 22:10, 26 November 2020 (UTC)19:43, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1. While TikTok's owner ByteDance is a Chinese company, TikTok itself is an app, a piece of software that has no inherent location or nationality. Moreover, TikTok's main global office is in Los Angeles, and the app is used by people around the world, notably excluding Chinese users. It has been argued that other articles on software (e.g., Facebook, SnapChat) state the country of origin initially, but this is not the convention across the board for software (see: Skype, Telegram (software) and Tencent QQ) and is a bad precedent to follow in any case. Unlike a person's nationality in the lead sentence of a biographical article, an app's country of origin tells the reader almost nothing about the product itself, especially in the case of a global app like TikTok. The app's connections to one country or another should be spelled out clearly in the remainder of the article, not as the primary initial descriptor of the article's subject. (Note: I work for ByteDance, as I have disclosed here and on my user page.) Bkenny44 (talk) 19:43, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
• no viral – Viral is a very strange attribute for a company. Why is that there? The cited source mentions a "viral video app", but even that is weird. Sure, one might want their video to "go viral", but what the heck? Dicklyon (talk) 21:03, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1: Option 2 gives the impression that it's used primarily in China, which is not the case. Rather, it's owned by a Chinese company, so option 1. Loki (talk) 06:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 - 2 is rather repetitive and as noted above it's a Worldwide site not just Chinese so keeping it as is could potentially cause confusion. –Davey2010^Talk 17:43, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 looks more suitable. Idealigic (talk) 19:59, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 - Option 2 is invalid. My version of the app is not Chinese it's English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.161.156.213 (talk) 21:14, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1. It looks silly to have "Chinese" twice in the sentence. Also, Option 2 is inaccurate or at least misleading, because strictly speaking there are two related apps, Douyin in China and TikTok internationally. (And if we were going to use option 2, wouldn't it be "Chinese viral video-sharing app" rather than "viral Chinese video-sharing app"? Surely the point is that the videos are viral rather than the app?) —Granger (talk · contribs) 10:04, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3: "TikTok is a Chinese video-sharing social networking service owned by ByteDance." '

every social media indicates country of origin. example facebook is american: Facebook (stylized as facebook) is an American online social media and social networking service based in Menlo Park, California, and a flagship service of the namesake company Facebook, Inc. Yeungkahchun (talk) 04:11, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3 (second) I agree with Yeungkahchun. YouTube, Whatsapp, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, Reddit and other apps all indicate that they are American at the beginning of lead. Why are we being inconsistent with a service owned by a Chinese company? Do some soul-searching folks...Coastside (talk) 05:55, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@LokiTheLiar:, @Davey2010: do you still vote for option 1 knowing how these other apps are handled? Not trying to put you on the spot, but hoping maybe to change some minds. Coastside (talk) 07:05, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and furthermore I would like to change the leads of all of those pages. They're international services owned by American companies, not American services. Loki (talk) 07:36, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with this wording. Upon first glance, option 1 struck me as the best option. It is odd to consider something I have on my phone to be Chinese when the style and culture (and language) it presents is so heavily American/English. I also read the inclusion of 'Chinese' so early on in the article to possibly be sinophobic, as surely the country of origin of the app developers is not important enough to claim the first non-trivial word in the article. However, having looked over several other examples, such as those given by Yeungkahchun, it is clear that every single article related to an app is written like this. There is a strong consistency argument here, and it favours the wording "TikTok is a Chinese video-sharing social networking service owned by ByteDance." Awoma (talk) 13:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

It's certainly not every single article related to an app. See Skype, Telegram, Tencent QQ, all of which were linked by Bkenny44 above. Loki (talk) 21:07, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3 because option two is poorly worded and viral is not necessary in the opening sentence. This screams of Americanisation here. We have popular American app/social media sites (facebook, Snapchat, Twitter etc) clearly and predominately calling them American even though they have worldwide use yet we want to have a different standard for a popular Chinese one. Skype mentioned above just further confirms this systemic bias. Yes I know other stuff exists, but when it is this endemic it reflects poorly on us as a neutral encyclopaedia. AIRcorn (talk) 06:43, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 GMPX1234 (talk) 05:40, 1 November 2020 (UTC) — GMPX1234 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs).
• Option 1 without the viral The repeat of the word Chinese in option 2 is redundant and the use of the word viral is awkward. Wikignometry (talk) 06:36, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
•  Comment: I feel that the current opener is good: "TikTok, known in China as Douyin (Chinese: 抖音; pinyin: Dǒuyīn), is a Chinese video-sharing social networking service owned by ByteDance." If everyone agrees this RfC can be closed. Seemplez 09:20, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3: Option 2 is absurdly bad, and Option 1 is better, but still quite awkward. The current opener (in Seemplez's comment above) seems fine to me. Alternatively, since the politics of the issue seem important to some people, it could be phrased as TikTok, known in China as Douyin (Chinese: 抖音; pinyin: Dǒuyīn), is a video-sharing social networking service owned by Chinese company ByteDance. But having "Chinese" twice in that sentence makes no sense from a copyediting perspective. jp×g 09:45, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 - the current header should have been listed, and neither of the two shown seems good as “viral” seems only occasionally true, and neither seems to be from RS. I think that other choices should be looked for, including the current lead. Maybe more focused on the tech, e.g. “TikTok is a popular social media app that allows users to watch, create, and share 15-second videos shot on cellphones.“ Maybe more on the back office and nationality prominent in the body e.g “TikTok is a video-sharing social-media service owned by Chinese company ByteDance.” Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 - Option 2 does not make proper sense. It makes sense like the app is for Chinese only, but its English version is actually popular.Rondolinda (talk) 22:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 - While Option 2 is consistent with other social media articles, I think, as per Bkenny44, that we shouldn't use it just because it's the current norm. I'd say, unless the app is higly localised to a country, indicating the place of origin in the lede is WP:UNDUE. For Instagram, YouTube, Facebook, TikTok, etc, where it's used by people all over the world, I don't see any benefit of including it in the lede instead of mentioning it further down. GoodCrossing (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 I don't think you have to mention Chinese twice in one sentence. Either you say it is a Chinese video-sharing service owned by Byte Dance, or you say it is a video sharing service owned by the Chinese company ByteDance. I think either way is fine. It is certainly notable enough that it is owned by a Chinese company.

But drop the viral, that's a very odd description for a service. Jort93 (talk) 01:15, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1, the service is not Chinese in itself but the company is. Other apps that say that they are American services do not need to say that they are American either. The proposal mentions its Chinese ownership in the first sentence anyways. < Atom (Anomalies) 22:04, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3, I second User:JPxG's proposal TikTok, known in China as Douyin (Chinese: 抖音; pinyin: Dǒuyīn), is a video-sharing social networking service owned by [the] Chinese company ByteDance. "Chinese video-sharing social networking service", as the article says now, is ambiguous, as it could be taken to mean that TikTok's meant for sharing Chinese videos, which is not the case. Option 2 is weirdly redundant, and Option 1 has 'viral' which is an ill-defined term unsuitable for use in the lead. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI ^{converse | fings wot i hav dun} 10:49, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1, but with Douyin and no "viral". I'd say we should just email ByteDance's Director of Corporate Communications and defer to whatever they prefer. Oh wait, that's literally the RfC proposer. Seriously, though, this RfC is way messier than it ought to be, since it's asking several questions at once, and despite AGF I have to suspect the proposer may have intentionally added the double-Chinese to option 2 to make it read worse.

With my humor/process objections out of the way, I actually am persuaded by the argument that it's the company, not the app itself, that has a nationality, and that the app's global audience does count for something. However, I strongly oppose changing away from the status quo of mentioning Douyin in the lead so long as it redirects here, since it came first and has slightly more users (700 million to 600 million). In fact, given that, I'm almost tempted to argue per {{Globalize}} that the lead should actually be Douyin, known outside of China as TikTok,.... Regarding the proposed addition of "viral", that's peacock language unsuitable for the lead—we can describe TikTok's size and rapid growth more encyclopedically by using statistics, and I'm not persuaded that "viral" is really a distinguishing characteristic of TikTok compared to other social networks of similar size. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:03, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb: Your assumption of good faith here is very much appreciated! In my defense, I formulated Option 2 in the way I did because that was the actual status quo lead sentence at the time (see the revision on Oct. 22). In an attempt to focus the discussion strictly on whether or not to call TikTok a "Chinese service," I did not propose changing any other element of the sentence (including the word "viral," which I absolutely agree does not belong). However, this clearly backfired, as in the time since I initiated the RfC, the lead sentence has undergone a series of changes - "viral" and the second "Chinese" were removed, among other things - making my original RfC formulation appear "whack," as you said.

As a result of this confusion, many of the votes here for Option 3 are actually in agreement with my main assertion: that it is the company that is Chinese, not the app. Taking that into consideration, my practical question to you is: Do we have consensus now for "Option 1, but with Douyin and no 'viral'"? If so, it would be great if you could boldly make that change - this RfC has dragged on for too long. And if not, is there a different way forward besides waiting for more votes to trickle in? Thanks, Bkenny44 (talk) 19:40, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Bkenny44, I apologize. Looking at the history, it seems that the Oct. 22 wording had only been in place about a week, so it wasn't a very strong status quo, and phrasing of the question a little more narrowly would have helped, but we can't expect perfection and I indeed should have assumed good faith more than I did.

Regarding implementing the result of this discussion, it's a bad idea to change a page while an RfC is ongoing (as the confusion here attests), and it's an especially bad idea for someone who has !voted in it (as I have) to do so. However, now that the 30 days have elapsed I will list this discussion at WP:ANRFC which will ensure it receives a close (although sometimes it can take a few weeks). {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:43, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3 per Yeungkahchun or JPxG or Jort93, and per my remarks in the sub-section below.

(I also note, as have others, that because Bkenny44 did not include the current wording as an explicit option in this RfC, the RfC is not neutral; it based on a leading question. This makes for a longer discussion than necessary, which (because Bkenny44 is self-acknowledged to be the Director of Corporate Communications at ByteDance) is a breach of WP:COITALK. Zazpot (talk) 02:33, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Should internationally used social networking services be described in the lead sentence as "American service"/"Chinese service," etc.?

• Comment: All the arguments here for Option 3 rely on the reasoning that many other articles on social networking services use country of origin (e.g., "American") in the lead sentence, and we shouldn't be inconsistent. But consistency alone is not enough - a bad precedent should not be followed. As LokiTheLiar said, the leads of all those pages should be changed. It makes equally little sense to describe Instagram as an "American" app when Instagram has about a billion users worldwide and only about 10% are American. I originally limited this RfC to TikTok because I didn't want to get into a wide-ranging discussion, but perhaps we do need to have that broader discussion, since the same principle should apply to all Wikipedia articles on apps and software in general. [[Bkenny44 (talk) 22:03, 26 November 2020 (UTC)]] (talk) 18:15, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

You're editing on IP, but since you say "you" limited the RfC to TikTok, can I presume you are Bkenny44? (And if so could you please respond on that account to confirm?) Loki (talk) 21:07, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Certainly bad precedents should not be followed. Also, several of those are recent additions (e.g., [3][4][5] – the last diff, by the way, cites making it match other articles as the primary reason), so they should not be considered long-standing precedents, regardless of whether you happen to think the precedent is good or bad. We might also notice that some other articles about very popular websites, including Google Search and Wikipedia, do not open by naming the site's country of origin, and that Tencent QQ follows the "service by Chinese company" model. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:58, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• Strong yes. A company that ultimately controls an app's software has enormous power over that app's users. By modifying the software (e.g. through software updates), it determines the possible ways in which users can interact with the app. It also has technical power over user data: where it is stored/sent/copied-to, etc.
  If the company is based in a jurisdiction where laws require the company to e.g. breach user privacy irrespective of where users are located (e.g. the U.S. CLOUD Act; Chinese equivalents), then it matters hugely which jurisdiction the company is headquartered in, because that in turn affects the ways in which the company may be compelled to mistreat users: which specific country's governments receive copies of user data without users' informed consent, etc.
  So yes, absolutely the jurisdiction in which an app-maker is headquartered should be mentioned by Wikipedia if the app or its maker are notable. Zazpot (talk) 08:21, 23 December 2020 (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.

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:

• TikTok by Solen Feyissa.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:32, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protejmtpcted edit request on 14 January 2021

2409:4053:2D8C:23DE:94B1:9F99:5F2A:75F2 (talk) 15:17, 14 January 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. --Un assiolo (talk) 15:23, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2021

Kezithecreator (talk) 19:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I would like to make a list of the most important influencers on the app. (Based on follower count)

This already exists at List of most-followed TikTok accounts. Calling these accounts the "most important influencers" would require a citation to a reliable source that directly ties follower count with importance. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 20:00, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Use by businesses

This is a modified version of the my earlier edit request, following comments made by Blablubbs. I am proposing the addition of a new section titled "Use by businesses," situated between the sections on "User characteristics and behavior" and "Country bans and attempted bans." The section should have the following content:

Small businesses have used TikTok to advertise and to reach an audience wider than the geographical region they would normally serve.

Some have used TikTok to connect with customers when engagement was difficult due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Notable collaborations between larger brands and top TikTok influencers have included Chipotle's partnership with David Dobrik in May 2019 and Dunkin' Donuts' partnership with Charli D'Amelio in September 2020.

References

Thank you, Bkenny44 (talk) 17:56, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Bkenny44: I have declined this request for being too promotional. Wikipedia is not here for promoting a companyas

These additions sound like it is trying to promote this brand and I struggle to understand why it is notable or has encyclopedic merit. While some of the articles you reference might be great to use in other sections, I do not think this information should be added as written. Please post below if you have any questions or comments. Z1720 (talk) 22:27, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Z1720, I support your decision.

Bkenny44, I want to remind you of WP:NOHIDDENADS and WP:COITALK. You are making egregious demands on the tone of the article and on the time of volunteer editors. Stop. Zazpot (talk) 02:50, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

@Z1720: Can you explain what specifically is too promotional about these additions? According to WP:PROMO, "information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery" - the policy doesn't say that this information should be omitted entirely. And I've taken great care to avoid puffery in my request, in particular following Blablubbs' comments on my original version. The sentences are neutrally written paraphrases of the reliable sources that I've cited, with no puffery to my eyes. I'm happy to work on the language further if you and other editors still think it's written promotionally, but it would help to have more specifics. As for the topic itself not having "encyclopedic merit," the way that businesses use TikTok has been covered extensively by reliable sources (including, but not limited to the sources I've cited) and this topic's absence from the Wikipedia article seems to me an unfortunate omission. Bkenny44 (talk) 15:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Bkenny44: I'm happy to work with COI editors to get information in the article. Just post below and ping me so I know to respond.

The first two sentences sound promotional because they are too general, short, and only mention positive attributes. The section should sound like a disinterested academic talking about Tik Toc's business model, but right now it sounds like a promoter's short pitch at the beginning of a business presentation. Try expanding the sentences and include sources from academic, peer-reviewed journals. Include information about how these practices affect Tik Tok, small business, how people advertise, or other perspectives you might find in your research. Ensure that positive, negative, and neutral perspectives are included to avoid WP:UNDUE.

I think the last sentence is not relevant to this article because it is not directly related to the company and I don't know how Tik Toc is profiting or being affected by this. For this to be included the information needs to be expanded and analysis provided.

Let me know if you have any questions. Z1720 (talk) 16:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@Z1720: Your comments were very helpful. I've put a lot of thought into expanding the paragraphs that I suggested earlier to make them more specific and less promotional. I've added detailed material from strong, reliable sources like the Financial Times, Digiday and Glossy. Also, keeping in mind what you said about avoiding WP:UNDUE and maintaining a disinterested tone, I removed the paragraph about how businesses have been using TikTok during the COVID-19 pandemic. Here is the new version of "Use by businesses":

In October 2020, the ecommerce platform Shopify added TikTok to its portfolio of social media platforms, allowing online merchants to sell their products directly to consumers on TikTok.

Some small businesses have used TikTok to advertise and to reach an audience wider than the geographical region they would normally serve. The viral response to many small business TikTok videos has been attributed to TikTok's algorithm, which shows content that viewers at large are drawn to, but which they are unlikely to actively search for (such as videos on unconventional types of businesses, like beekeeping and logging). In some industries, such as the cosmetic industry, the follower counts of smaller "Gen-Z-founded, DIY brands" have far outstripped the follower counts of major brands using TikTok.

In 2020, digital media companies such as Group Nine Media and Global used TikTok increasingly, focusing on tactics such as brokering partnerships with TikTok influencers and developing branded content campaigns. Notable collaborations between larger brands and top TikTok influencers have included Chipotle's partnership with David Dobrik in May 2019 and Dunkin' Donuts' partnership with Charli D'Amelio in September 2020. Similarly, in the music industry, RCA Records regularly hires TikTok influencers to promote its artists, working with both well-known and lesser-known creators.

Some retail brands have incorporated TikTok into their marketing strategies by encouraging their employees to post TikTok videos and participate in TikTok challenges, while other brands have gone further by maintaining a pre-approved group of employee TikTok influencers.

References

Please feel free to adjust the language of the section as you see fit before you add the section to the article. Thanks! Bkenny44 (talk) 21:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Bkenny44 The length of the request means it will take me a while to assess these changes. Please open a new request edit ticket so that it can be part of the queue. Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 22:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC)