Jump to content

Talk:Twitter/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

Fake Followers

On July 2012, the famous Egyptian singer Tamer Hosny was criticized by New Egypt Consulting, a local social media company, for buying fake followers to reach one million Twitter followers in a short time. New Egypt Consulting's blog post went viral on social media enforcing Twitter to remove Tamer Hosny's verification sign and more than half of his Twitter followers especially when the blog post got featured in ElFagr newspaper, FilFan, Yahoo! OMG, Akhbarak Portal, and AlBawabah News. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoeTalebEgypt (talk • contribs) 01:04, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Not relevant to this page. Meatsgains (talk) 02:11, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
People have developed various ways of adding fake likes to social media websites, and it is also common on Facebook and YouTube.[2] It's a silly thing to do because it usually backfires and causes bad publicity, an example of the law of unintended consequences. The example given above isn't really notable enough for a mention here, but it would be more on topic at Click farm.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:17, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2017

Change "danah boyd" to "Danah Boyd". Proper nouns should be capitalized. Zachary RT Boyd (talk) 18:25, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2017

Can you change these source links back from:

  • https://online.wsj.com/articles/twitter-boosts-video-push-with-snappytv-buy-1403187557?mod=mktw
  • https://online.wsj.com/articles/twitter-acquires-security-password-startup-mitro-1406832734
  • https://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703716904576134543029279426.html?KEYWORDS=twitter
  • https://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB117373145818634482-ZwdoPQ0PqPrcFMDHDZLz_P6osnI_20080315.html

To:

  • http://online.wsj.com/articles/twitter-boosts-video-push-with-snappytv-buy-1403187557?mod=mktw
  • http://online.wsj.com/articles/twitter-acquires-security-password-startup-mitro-1406832734
  • http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703716904576134543029279426.html?KEYWORDS=twitter
  • http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB117373145818634482-ZwdoPQ0PqPrcFMDHDZLz_P6osnI_20080315.html

please? They redirect to the "sign up/subscribe" page. 103.199.137.190 (talk) 00:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done though we prefer the https so this I did by changing the "online" to "www" in the links. --MASEM (t) 00:57, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Noted. --bender235 (talk) 14:55, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I note that the change I made from "https://online.wsj.com" to "https://www.wsj.com" fixed things (though you'll still land on the partial page view that WSJ employs and requires PAYWALL access or the Google News trick to bypass.) But at least it's not to broken pages anymore and still uses https. --MASEM (t) 15:00, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

EXACT same sentence in two different paragraphs in the 'Growth' section

So I was reading the 'Growth' section of the article, and I noticed that the sentence "However, a glitch came about after the page was launched, so the previous "retro" homepage was still in use until the issues were resolved; the new homepage was reintroduced on April 20" has been duplicated once over.

I've only just came across this, so I don't know which sentence is truth and which one is not. I made a screenshot of a Find of the sentence, you can click on this to view it.

This is the first time I've actually done something on this site other than some minor grammatical edits, so I'm probably not doing this the proper way, my apologies for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsturrock (talk • contribs) 11:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2017

change 2001:4998:EFFD:7804:0:0:0:1035 (talk) 00:38, 18 April 2017 (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. — IVORK Discuss 01:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Error

Twitter#Initial_public_offering_(IPO)

In November 2016, Twitter's stock dwindled causing potential acquirers to pass on a deal.[107]

This is not what the source says - it says " Not only has Twitter’s stock (TWTR) slumped, potential deep-pocketed acquirers also passed on a deal apparently because the network too often a cesspool of abuse. " , which is clarified in the article linked from that text ie Twitter trolls were part of the reason why Salesforce walked away from a deal] (finance.yahoo.com)

83.100.174.82 (talk)

Hi there! Thanks for pointing out that error! The ending of that section is a little odd (for example, why is an acquisition important in a section about IPO?), so tomorrow I will fix it by adding info on all of the potential bidders backing away from the deal, which is what the paragraph alludes to but doesn't state correctly. LocalNet (talk) 20:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Fixed! :) LocalNet (talk) 06:05, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Twitter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:48, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

"Twitter explains on their website not to modify the logo"

I'd like to "explain" to you to fix this poorly-worded sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:588:4200:1C59:ED9F:1A43:418E:E1D9 (talk) 16:21, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

IPA

I would tend to say it "twit-ter" rather than "twi-ter" as implied in the IPA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.80.13.210 (talk) 21:42, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think that the IPA is necessary as "twitter" is a common English word. IPA is needed only if the pronunciation may be confusing to some people. Over at Wikitionary they have given ˈtwɪtə as the received pronunciation, but there is always some spread in how a word could be pronounced.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 03:59, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2017

Please change "Twitter is ranked as one of the ten-most-visited websites worldwide by Alexa's web traffic analysis." to "Twitter is ranked eleventh most visited websites worldwide by Alexa's web traffic analysis." Source: http://www.alexa.com/topsites

Please change "A February 2009 Compete.com blog entry ranked Twitter as the third most used social network based on their count of 6 million unique monthly visitors and 55 million monthly visits." to "An April 2017 statista.com blog entry ranked Twitter as the tenth most used social network based on their count of 319 million monthly visitors." Source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/272014/global-social-networks-ranked-by-number-of-users/

Please remove "In March 2009, a Nielsen.com blog ranked Twitter as the fastest-growing website in the Member Communities category for February 2009." as Twitter is not the fastest-growing website.

Please change "Twitter had annual growth of 1.382 percent, increasing from 475,000 unique visitors in February 2008 to 7 million in February 2009. In 2009, Twitter had a monthly user retention rate of forty percent." to "Twitter's annual growth rate decreased from 7.8% in 2015 to 3.4% in 2017 and is projected to fall to 2% annually in 2020." Source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/303723/twitters-annual-growth-rate-worldwide/ PiyushKhatri (talk) 10:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC)  Done — Music1201 talk 17:44, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2017

Reference: Twitter revamps its dashboard in the hope of attracting new users and reengaging existing subscribers. Source: RPRNmag newsmagazine for the entrepreneur[1] NFarkas (talk) 19:07, 19 June 2017 (UTC) NFarkas (talk) 19:07, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:38, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://rprnmag.com/technology/twitter-gets-a-new-look-does-it-get-it-right/

This sentence is wrong! "The service rapidly gained worldwide popularity."

Twitter used to be a crappy idea till 2009. Here's the article about this fact: http://hellohenrik.com/2009/12/twitter-used-to-be-a-crappy-idea-3-lesson-learned/ 21:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Emergency Use section needs reinforcement

OKcitynet (talk) 14:23, 9 July 2017 (UTC) There are important developments in the area of Twitter's use or potential use to organize and understand public responses during natural disasters. The present section "Emergency Use" (9.3.2) is quite spare and needs reinforcement and updating, particularly regarding types of emergency management situations where Twitter has played or could play a role. After the sentence, "In addition, Twitter has acted as a sensor for automatic response to natural disasters such as bush fires." (ref 386, 387), new text is recommended: "It has also been used or proposed as a tool to determine how emergency messages from local authorities are interpreted and understood by residents living in areas vulnerable to catastrophic events such as tornadoes and coastal flooding."

Suggested references:

Junghoon Chae, Dennis Thom, Yun Jang, SungYe Kim, Thomas Ertl, David Ebert (2013). “Public Behavior Response Analysis in Disaster Events Utilizing Visual Analytics of Microblog Data”. Computers and Graphics. 38 (2):51–60. doi.org/10.1016/j.cag.2013.10.008.

Matthew Auer, Yuman Zhang, Priscilla Lee (2014). “The Potential of Microblogs for the Study of Public Perceptions of Climate Change”. WIREs Climate Change. 5 (3): 291–296. doi: 10.1002/wcc.273. OKcitynet (talk) 14:23, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

mandatory phone numbers

This article should mention this somewhere. I can't find any info and it is important.

My first account I made years ago I did not provide a phone number. It still works.

I tried to create a new one today and it wouldn't let me unless I provided a phone number for them.

There doesn't appear to be any way around it. This is a MAJOR change worth covering in the article.

Iwould like help in finding sources which reported on this. I would like to know what year this change was made. It deserves its own section. ScratchMarshall (talk) 19:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

In March 2015, Twitter changed its rules to force users of Tor (anonymity network) to provide a phone number when signing up for a new account.[3] This was done because of ongoing problems with trolls.[4] It looks as though Twitter now requires a phone number for all new signups, regardless of whether the IP address is on Tor or not. This has led to various people asking online how they can sign up for Twitter without phone verification. The sourcing here does not say that all new signups require a phone number, although many people have reported that they can't sign up for Twitter nowadays unless they provide one. This needs clearer sourcing.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:39, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Twitter's sign up guidelines do not say that a phone number is mandatory, and allow an email address for verification. I've just created this new Twitter account and was not asked for phone verification. On the basis of this new account, mandatory phone verification is a myth, but many people are asked for phone verification. The use of Tor, VPNs or mobile IP addresses may require phone verification, but I created this account from my home IP address without Tor or a VPN. So if I do anything naughty with the new account, the police can come knocking at the door:)--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trump

I didn't see him specifically mentioned, but it seems news coverage of his tweets is greater than news coverage of any world leader's tweets. How do we establish my theory?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:34, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Good article my arse.

Enough said.174.89.133.125 (talk) 16:50, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the new 280 character limit...

As this feature is only being tested right now by Twitter and it is only available to a very small group of users, the possible 280-character expansion should not be mentioned in the lede. Only when Twitter formally adopts the 280 character limit should the lede be changed to reflect it. --Bigeyedbeansfromvenus (talk) 01:00, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, this shouldn't be in the WP:LEAD right now, and it has been removed. The reason Twitter gave in this blog post is that some languages have more difficulty than others with a 140 character limit. Since this is experimental at the moment and limited to a small group of users, it's too early to consign Twitter's famous 140 character limit to the history books. Currently the only way for most users to post more than 140 characters is to use an add-on service such as TwitLonger.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:26, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
In the early days of Twitter, most of the tweets from mobile devices were posted via SMS, and dedicated smartphone apps were some way in the future. Quote from Jack Dorsey on the new limit here. Perhaps this could be added.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:16, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2017

To be added in the 'Issues and Controversies' heading.

On the 28th of September Twitter was ordered by an Australian court to remove content posted by a "Mole" posting the information of an unnamed company on Twitter. Article in The Sydney Morning HeraldArticle in NSW Case Law In a precedent setting decision Twitter was ordered to provide a full range of information related to the user account. Twitter did not offer any defense and did not attend court. Article in The Sydney Morning HeraldArticle in NSW Case Law TransparencyUS (talk) 11:23, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

DRAGON BOOSTER You had posted welcome greetings on this new users talk page. If you have time than would you respond to this edit request ? I cannot help this user, as I have used Twitter in past and presently use it occasionally to read news and tweets of public figures and humorists. I hope you understand. Anoptimistix (talk) 15:04, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
At the moment, this would have problems with WP:NOTNEWS. It isn't practical to mention every controversy or court case. It's not unusual for Twitter to give information about a user account if a court in a competent jurisdiction requests it. Mr Monkey is another case where this happened.[5] Twitter's privacy policy says "we may preserve or disclose your information if we believe that it is reasonably necessary to comply with a law, regulation, legal process, or governmental request".--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:24, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Future owners of Twitter?

Who will buy Twitter?

If Twitter is ever bought by Facebook, might it be called Twitface? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.100.122.180 (talk) 20:19, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Twitter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:35, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Revisions suggested 12/10/13

Please copy record tweet information from “Growth” section to the “Record Tweets” section. The heading “Record Tweets” only has two record tweets under it, and would be improved by adding more record tweets from the “Growth” section.

The first paragraph of the “Issues and Controversies” section should be altered. Most of the paragraph leads the reader to assume that Twitter has played a large role in the Arab Spring. Then the last sentence discredits that line of thought by stating only a small fraction of the population of Arab Spring countries are active on Twitter. Please revise to state a debate exists as to the size of the role Twitter has had in these revolutions. Twitter revolutions should possibly have its own heading, where this debate can be summarized.

The following text should be included to introduce the Arab Spring section of the first paragraph of “Issues and Controversies”. In 2009, the Western world projected Twitter onto the green revolution in Iran. Twitter did play a role in the uprising, but not to the extent the Western media said it did. An extreme minority of Iranians used Twitter at that point in time. Twitter did help publicize the events of the green revolution in an otherwise secretive and closed country, but Twitter did not drive the masses into the streets of Tehran. source: http://www.publicaffairsbooks.com/morozovch1.pdf

Scheduled tweets

There is no reference to this feature in main article page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.17.11 (talk) 18:16, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Science Communication Section

Hello. I plan to add a new section under 9.3: Impact, titled Scientific Communication. This section will share information regarding how scientists use Twitter to share their research. I believe this is a significant topic because it shows how the scientific community is adapting to changes in society to reach a larger audience and gain notoriety. Does anyone have any thoughts on the subject or ways to enrich the discussion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenjaminApplegate (talk • contribs) 00:02, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

It depends on whether this has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. If not, it would have problems with WP:OR and WP:DUE. Wikipedia articles are not course assignment essays, and need to stick to things that reliable sources have said.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Twitter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:56, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

In all the social media websites, there must be login type added.

In all the social media websites, or the websites in which there is login, we must added proper description that how a user can login. like in some social media there is only login by phone number or in some email is only login or in some any of both are valid. There must be Login Type added in Infobox Software. Examples

Login Type - Only by Phone Number Login Type - Only by Email address(or Username) Login Type - Phone Number or Email address(or Username)(Any) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niharpatel123456 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

This runs into WP:NOTHOWTO. It's fairly obvious that people have to log in to a social media account before posting, but the article does not need to give details of how to do it. It is more on topic for the help section of the website itself--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

SSL

http://www.zdnet.com/article/twitter-adds-ssl-security/

Twitter added SSL in 2011. Benjamin (talk) 13:40, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Twitter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Admin,

In this article, there are many non-free logo and screenshots. Accoriding to WP:NFURG information, we can use only one or two non-free files in an article. So what I should do now?Keep or Remove. Thank You - Siddiq Sazzad (Chat) 06:27, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

The logos intended to show how the logo has changed over the years are OK. I agree that several of the screenshots of the site could be removed without any great loss to the article. Screenshots should be used sparingly--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:58, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Evaluation Question

How did the name and concept of twitter come from? How did it initially get started? Skylarfogerty (talk) 16:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Twitter changes Character Limit from 140 to 280

I was like surprise when I hear about twitter character limit extension. It was like now i can share more with the readers and can express myself more. Thanks for doing this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avancer123 (talk • contribs) 13:05, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

The change was rolled out for all users in November 2017. What is interesting, though, is that Twitter's site analysis shows that the typical tweet length has not changed significantly and remains at less than 50 characters. According to a Twitter spokesperson, "the average length of a Tweet hasn't really changed." and only 1% of tweets hit the 280 character limit.[6] The graph from Twitter's blog here (which could do with some numbers on the y axis) shows that not many tweets make use of the new 140 to 280 character limit.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:48, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Evaluation Question

How was the logo created? The article maintains the same topic throughout, I did not notice any random side topics.

The article is very neutral.

The inserted links work well in the article.

Megan warren613 (talk) 20:14, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

The original Twitter bird logo was a piece of stock art created by the British designer Simon Oxley.[7][8] This version is largely forgotten today, and probably should be mentioned in the article. Oxley's graphic appeared on the main page [9] but it was not strictly speaking the logo.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:24, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2018

I got a dead link from this article. Please replace or insert this article https://blue-proserpina.tumblr.com/post/175345936443/twittersms Hr3doy (talk) 18:49, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done The second URL was added under the archive-url parameter of the citation template.  spintendo  19:20, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I object to the inclusion of this non-WP:RS. Tumblr is a user blog site. I have just visited the Register link, and it works fine, indicating that the author of the article is a Register reporter, John Leyden. It thoroughly confuses me how this article, copyright "Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018" by the UK media outlet, should end up verbatim in a Tumblr account crediting it as: "This post is written by Football WhatsApp Group team", whose pages contain no copyright notices or attribution whatsoever. If I did not WP:AGF then I would say that linking to this Tumblr page is a WP:LINKVIO, and I would also be quite suspicious of such a request from a newly-registered, one-edit account with a cleverly-spelled username. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 00:15, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree, and have reverted this. We shouldn't link to what is almost surely a WP:COPYVIO on Tumblr in any situation, and the link isn't dead. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:17, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Green Party

please change ((Green Party)) to ((Green Party of the United States|Green Party))

 Done Thank you, - FlightTime (open channel) 17:47, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Stop reverting Twitter's election interference

Twitter's choice to randomly delete verified accounts of ballot status candidates is inherently notable. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 05:33, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

No it isn't. If nobody other than the candidate talks about it, it certainly isn't important enough to include in this article. Surely some tech reporters or political reporters will care if it is "inherently notable". power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:36, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Election interference. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 22:51, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2018

Tahir Hassan 01 (talk) 10:50, 13 September 2018 (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. ChamithN (talk) 11:33, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Lede Goes Straight to the Political, Ignores "Everything Else"

Currently working on the Gab Article, particularly the Lede, and came here to see if the Twitter Article could be used as some kind of template. I like the Lede for the most part, except for:

"Since 2015, and continuing into 2016 and future years, Twitter has also been the home of debates, and news covering Politics of the United States, especially during the 2016 U.S. presidential election, Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court Nomination, and 2018 United States Midterms, with Twitter proved to be the largest source of breaking news on the day of the 2016 election, with 40 million election-related tweets sent by 10:00 p.m. (Eastern Time) that day.[22]"

I think this indicates more about the bias of the Editors (their interest in politics), rather than what most people would be interested in. My point goes to the quality of the Lede "inviting the Reader to continue reading". Rather than stating the topic "politics" in the Lede, and then providing examples of the political nature of Twitter, I think "politics" should be included in a list of other topics, such as connecting with movie stars and TV personalities, news, connections with friends & family, etc... There's limited space for this part of the Lede, it should not be limited to politics, to the exclusion of everything else. Also I think it has a strong smack of "recentism". When I read the Lede, I don't get an invitation to read more about a social networking service, or even any sense of what one is, which I would think would be the primary objective in the construction of a Lede. Also, I just don't think that people care that much about who created the website. It's just not the first thing someone wants to know, and tbh it's not that interesting, aka "inviting". I'd bury that data lower in the body. It's software. No one cares about who wrote, created, etc... the software. Maybe it's a matter of "inviting" vs. "encyclopedic", and encyclopedic standards require this information to be placed in this location, but it gives me the vibe of a 7th grade essay, and not an Article written for an adult, by intelligent adults. Just throwing this out here, in case anyone else agrees with me.2605:6000:6947:AB00:403D:E24D:E465:4A0 (talk) 10:09, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2018

Under the TECHNOLOGY heading, there is a misspelling:

"On August 16, 2013, Raffi Krikorian, Twitter's vice president of platform rngineering"

'rnginerring' should probably be 'engineering' Cnering (talk) 17:57, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Talk page protection

I have placed this talk page on Autoconfirmed protection for 7 days to hopefully stop this person that is jumping accounts from spamming more. --Masem (t) 01:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2019

Need to add information under Issues and controversies section, it is notable that recently in Feb 2019, Twitter officials were summoned by Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India to question them on allegations of bias against certain user groups based on their political views [1] Amitized (talk) 08:53, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. Twitter is a pretty massive entity, and not every little thing can be added here. This source appears to be fairly sensationalistic, and it's not clear that including this wouldn't give WP:UNDUE weight to (a possibly non-) story. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:33, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Aggarwal, Monica (5/2/2019). "Reporter". Republic world. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2019

Employees: 3,372 (2017) to Employees: 4,378 (2019) Abdelrhman-m27 (talk) 13:40, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. It looks like we've been pulling this number from data in the annual report, and a quick Google search doesn't turn up an annual report more recent than 2017. Is there a better / more recent source out there? ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 13:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Request edit on 12 March 2019

Request to edit the logo section of this article to correctly credit the designers and the evolution of the twitter bird

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/10/magazine/who-made-that-twitter-bird.html

Replace logo section with: "Twitter has become internationally identifiable by its signature bird logo, or the Twitter Bird. The original logo was accompanied by an image of a bird which was a piece of clip art created by the British graphic designer Simon Oxley.[140] The next iteration of the Twitter bird came in 2009 with a cartoonish design by Philip Pascuzzo under the art direction of Biz Stone, a year later in 2010, Pascuzzo and Stone updated the bird further by removing certain features to create the iconic silhouette of the bird. In 2012, Twitter unveiled its third logo redesign, by Doug Bowman, a slightly modified version by removing certain tufts of feather and upturning the bird slightly. As of this logo revision, the word "Twitter" and the lowercase letter "t" are no longer used, with the bird becoming the sole symbol for the company's branding.[142] According to Douglas Bowman, the new logo resembles a mountain bluebird.[143][144]"


Pepcostudio (talk) 17:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

(The above requested edit was made by clicking on a link in an automatically added notice.)

Reply 12-MAR-2019

  Already implemented  

  • The suggested reference is already included in the article.
  • If there is a specific change to the text that is desired, it has not been specified in the request.[a]

Regards,  Spintendo  18:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Notes

  1. ^ The requested paragraph put forth by the requesting editor is a combination of already-existing text plus text which is desired to be added. To aid in the review process, the additional text (along with its reference) should be highlighted or otherwise segregated from the already existing text.

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2019

Add to Issues and Controversies:

In May 2019 Twitter posted to its website that it had inadvertently collected iOS user location data and shared it with certain third-party vendors.[1] [2] Balance66 (talk) 17:38, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done Saucy[talk – contribs] 06:41, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "A bug impacting collection and sharing of location data on iOS devices". Twitter. Retrieved 17 May 2019.
  2. ^ LAKSHMANAN, RAVIE. "Twitter bug accidentally shared location data of some iOS users". The Next Web. Retrieved 17 May 2019.

Mention 2017 blocking bypass bug.

I suggest mentioning the bug on Twitter until 2017 where users could reply to users who blocked them without them noticing it.

Articles:

Actually, tweets from blocking users still showed up in search results. And it was possible to reply to them as well.

And TweetDeck also allowed bypassing blocks.

Eventually, Twitter patched both of these bugs.

Since when these bugs existed is unclear.

–Chanc20190325 (talk) 10:29, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Defining "Public Interest" on Twitter

https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2019/publicinterest.html Tym Whittier (talk) 19:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2019

Change the status from Active to Outage because recently an outage has occurred on July 11th, 2019 according to this website: https://status.twitterstat.us/ Ljcool2006 (talk) 19:39, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. That's not what's it for. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:05, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
There was an outage on 11 July 2019, but it is now back up for most people.[10] It was "due to an internal configuration change" according to the status page (which isn't as much fun to look at as the old fail whale). The infobox field should not be changed to "inactive" unless the site is offline permanently.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2019

I would like to make an edit to the logo section. Please see this New York Times article and correct the logo section. Philip Pascuzzo of Pepcostudio.com, along with Biz Stone, were responsible for the Twitter logo from 2008, and created the silhouette that is still used today.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/10/magazine/who-made-that-twitter-bird.html 96.236.25.237 (talk) 20:12, 30 July 2019 (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. Melmann 16:48, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Removal of trivia section?

Hello, @Ita140188:. Please explain your removal of the trivia section. You need to keep it reasonable, to make users comprehend your edit. --Handroid7 (talk) 12:32, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

@Handroid7: sorry for not being clear enough. The removal of trivia sections is an agreed upon policy of Wikipedia, see WP:TRIVIA. Moreover, in this case the information the section contained is not relevant enough to be included in this article. --Ita140188 (talk) 12:47, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
I see. Thank you for explanation. --Handroid7 (talk) 12:51, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

twitter employee(s) use SQL to change user data

https://twitter.com/Aug1919/status/1166068768776146944/photo/1
twitter employee(s) use SQL to change user data — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.202.224.42 (talk) 19:27, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Lack of criticism

Besides the censorship section, this article contains no clear area devoted to criticism of the service. This, in my opinion, feels non-neutral, as Facebook does have a clearly-defined area devoted to criticism and controversy. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:51, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Articles are not technically supposed to have dedicated criticism sections - they should be placed throughout the article where appropriate. There is clearly criticsm of Twitter in this article, and we want the long-term stuff, not "here's what Twitter did today that pisses me off" type stuff. --Masem (t) 15:55, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
See WP:CSECTION. I really don't like any specific section headed with the words "criticism", "controversy" or similar. They can run into a range of problems including WP:NPOV and WP:COATRACK. Where critical viewpoints are needed, they should be integrated into the main body of the text.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:54, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

why does wikimedia with maher and wales claim it has very tough privacy policy when that is not so as proven, read comments

twitter.com/wikimedia/status/1199039937103818752?lang=en — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.44.84.7 (talk) 02:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Weird phrasing

In the Initial public offering section there's this line which sounds pretty weird to me. "The paperwork from show of November 7 that among the founders [...]" I'll be editing it in the meantime, any suggestion regarding this is welcomed. --NicoSkater97 (talk) 14:53, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2020

Twitter is an BIAS based American Bbwild20 (talk) 07:55, 11 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. JTP (talk • contribs) 08:02, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Grammar error report

To fight that, Twitter announced in March and May 2020 that will start marking tweets that may contain misleading information, and in some cases, would provide links to pages that would provide pages of fact-checking info

To fight that, Twitter announced in March and May 2020 that will start marking tweets that may contain misleading information, and in some cases, would provide links to pages that would provide pages of fact-checking info Sorry, but this is not a proper English sentence! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7ed1:2e00:1053:f3f6:9a83:69e1 (talk) 17:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Moved into a new section. Danski454 (talk) 22:09, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Criticism

By now, since every other (big) website and corporation has a "criticism of ______" article, I think it's fair Twitter have its own as well. @sirkh1, 02:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Agreed -- The section is conspicuous by its absence, especially as its posters flee to Parler in droves. - JGabbard (talk) 19:24, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Remove Section: Decline and Levels of Use

This small subsection is actively misleading. The purported "decline" in usage from 24% to 22% of the U.S. population is within the survey's own margin of error of 2.85%. Consequently, speculation in this section about the causes of the 'decline' of Twitter, which is poorly supported anyway, should also be removed.

Since the demographic figures in the larger section are flagged as outdated, it seems like we might as well also plug in the available racial, gender, age, etc. figures on Twitter users from the 2019 Pew survey.

Everything here sound appropriate?

--Jimmysoc (talk) 00:57, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

"Twitcam" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Twitcam. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 5#Twitcam until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 18:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Inconsistent casing of 'a tweet'.

The phrase 'a tweet' is used with inconsistent letter casing. Sometimes "tweet" is spelled with a capital letter (e.g. "attach it to a Tweet right from Twitter.com" and "large chunk of a Tweet, about 24") and sometimes without (e.g. "after posting a tweet joking about bombing" and "only promote a tweet onto the timelines"). --143.176.30.65 (talk) 18:18, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Most likely we mean to use just lowercase. In addition to the two examples of incorrect usage I mentioned above, I see five more (that are not a part of quotes), namely: "redesigned profile and timeline of Tweets.", "a user can click the retweet button within the Tweet.", "about 500 million Tweets every day,", "using it to create coloured Tweets.", and "signatures, over Tweets that included". --143.176.30.65 (talk) 18:22, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Edit request: Smash Bros reveal

Five news articles are reporting that Minecraft Steve being revealed for Smash Ultimate has caused Twitter servers to crash temporarily. I suck at editing though. Here are the sources, make the entry something like this

"On October 1st, Nintendo revealed that Steve from Minecraft would be playable as DLC in Super Smash Bros. Ultimate, the following reception caused Twitter server issues."

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/twitter-crashes-and-reacts-to-super-smash-bros-ultimates-minecraft-steve-reveal/1100-6482817/

https://www.videogameschronicle.com/news/minecraft-super-smash-bros-ultimate-reveal-causes-twitter-to-crash/

https://ftw.usatoday.com/2020/10/super-smash-bros-ultimate-minecraft-steve-reaction

https://screenrant.com/super-smash-bros-ultimate-minecraft-dlc-crash-twitter/

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/twitter-crashes-and-reacts-to-super-smash-bros-ultimates-minecraft-steve-reveal/1100-6482817/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1107:8A76:55E:1BC4:366C:3966 (talk) 18:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Not done; I think that this has an element of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:10YT.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:58, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

15 october 2020

like censor much C.Fred https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Twitter&diff=983991679&oldid=983955268 Baratiiman (talk) 14:35, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

No. However, the passage you wrote was ill-written. What does Trump sharing a satire story have to do with Twitter? —C.Fred (talk) 15:02, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
C.Fred He tweeted [an article from the satirical website Babylon Bee on Friday morning that] claimed Twitter shut down the entire network to slow down spread of negative news about Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden. issue solved? Baratiiman (talk) 15:17, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
@Baratiiman: No. Unless reliable secondary sources are saying that the subpoena was a result of Trump's retweet of a work of fiction, I don't see how it should be mentioned at all. —C.Fred (talk) 15:20, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
C.FredIf you didnt like the 2nd part that doesnt explain why you deleted the 1st section Baratiiman (talk) 15:34, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
It's the usual problem of WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS. It isn't possible to mention every news story in a Wikipedia article, and there needs to be consideration of the lasting significance. This is an interesting situation, but things should be allowed to settle down before considering whether to add this.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:05, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
I think we could have a broad section related to Twitter and the 2020 election cycle (including the earlier mail fraud-related tweets that Trump had made and were marked), leading up these events. Though this is all part of a larger issue of Big Tech and the gov't, alongside Section 230 and more. I myself don't even know what article a "big picture" would be for this yet because its' so vague to describe what's happening. --Masem (t) 16:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Masem word you are looking for is left wing cultural revolution in the USA Baratiiman (talk) 17:33, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2020

Please change this to show that Twitter and its counterpart Facebook are Fascist Commies that want to prevent free speech. Moreover, they have become full benefactors of the leftwing socialist in the DemonCrat party. They are a danger to our democracy and a scourge to our country. They, along with the fake news, are the Communist Chinese equivalent - for America. They are the enemy of the people. They should be feared and rejected as what they are and have become. The fascist! Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).</ref> 2600:1700:B7D1:4400:D993:7220:43FE:C5F5 (talk) 17:35, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. (CC) Tbhotch™ 17:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
It's also WP:SOAPBOXING rather than a serious edit request.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
To Tbhotch and ♦IanMacM♦, I strongly agree! I mean, we're talking about someone who talks about "Fascist Commies", even though fascism is opposed to communism! And that isn't all! As Tbhotch said, there isn't any evidence of a communist or fascist conspiracy that endangers "our democracy", nor has there been much evidence of "socialism" within the Democratic Party. And as for IanMacM, the unnamed user seems to be suggesting this edit of this page for political purposes, to repeat pro-Trump narratives as fact (i.e. "Fake news" or "Enemy of the people") when they actually aren't true ("Communist Chinese equivalent") or meaningful ("Demoncrat"). Wikipedia is a place for facts and proof, so why should we let him put anything else here? SleepTrain456 (talk) 00:05, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Request edit on 10 November 2020

Twitter Censorship: Twitter has censored many conservative viewpoints and has blocked numerous accounts owned by conservative users. Congress has subpoenaed Twitter in order to get answers as to why it is censoring conservative viewpoints disproportionately more then liberal viewpoints.

Twitter has also been used to organize violent protests by antifa and BLM.

Please add references to support these facts.

(The above requested edit was made by clicking on a link in an automatically added notice.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:a980:e20:f4cb:ca98:be6f:521c (talk) 21:13, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

If you want the information added, it will help your cause greatly if you provide the references—preferably to high-quality reliable sources—rather than expecting other editors to find them. —C.Fred (talk) 21:31, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Addition/Edit to Statistics

The record tweet of Carter Wilkerson should probably be included in the "Record Tweets" space— Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.249.40.185 (talk) 19:06, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Terrorist Support Scandal

With the recent scandal regarding the Covington Catholic boys, numerous verified users on Twitter advocated for violence against them based on their political affiliation and false allegations of racist harassment (https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2019/01/20/covington-catholic-incident-indigenous-peoples-march-longer-video/2630930002/). Some users continued to post false and otherwise unlawful tweets, while other users took theirs down when they realized the story was false (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/01/julie-irwin-zimmerman-i-failed-covington-catholic-test/580897/). Twitter did suspend at least one account originating the unlawful content (https://www.krdo.com/news/national-world/twitter-suspends-account-that-helped-ignite-controversy-over-viral-encounter/985741614). A lawyer has already confirmed he's working with the victim families to pursue legal action (https://pjmedia.com/trending/lawyer-for-covington-catholic-hs-families-threatens-lawsuits-against-media-unless-they-retract-false-stories/). When Twitter was notified about the unlawful tweets that still remained live, they refused to take down unlawful tweets (https://external-preview.redd.it/aUe0yE1vXGV2NWCt3OsNamNmDTr2ynhSIPByHqMmzFM.png?width=640&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=b826a2b4b224fe9a6660ee30ad2ee8851034de44g) While some tweets call for violence against these boys, others make false statements about them. Some tweets do both. This is not merely unlawful defamation. These tweets are a crime. Politically motivated violence is textbook terrorism, and incitement of violence is a crime in every state in the US. Twitter is knowingly allowing unlawful content on their network, both violations of civil law as well as criminal law, including incitement of terrorism. Police are being deployed because of violent threats against the school (https://preview.redd.it/1sr9w0s47zb21.jpg?width=640&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=9b0e90c0a9eed719496a778c9ecbeadfb4abeb39) and students are supposed to stay home. Their site (covcath.org) has also been DDOS'd also because of these unlawful tweets. This scandal certainly merits inclusion on Wikipedia. I'd add but the page is locked.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.56.228.136 (talk) 17:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

CENSORSHIP of New York Post story about Hunter Biden

The New York Post exposed Hunter Biden and Joe Biden's corruption. Twitter blocked it. And now Twitter CEO is being subpoenaed to the US Senate to answer for their actions.[1]— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.215.190 (talk) 16:40, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Senate to Subpoena Twitter CEO Over Blocking of Disputed Biden Articles".

Twitter Far-Left/Liberal

New user deleted the term without discussion

https://www.vox.com/2018/9/14/17857622/twitter-liberal-employees-conservative-trump-politics TuffStuffMcG (talk) 21:48, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what your point is. Although equating far left with liberal seems a bit of a stretch. 22:03, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes, conservative doesn't equate with "far-right". And liberal doesn't mean "far-left". Liz Read! Talk! 22:08, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
My point was, it was there for some time, and instead of just deleting it, a citation discussion should have been marked and time given to either; find adequate sources/revise/remove.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 22:11, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
2 hours is not a long time. There was no discussion about its inclusion so why should there be discussion about removing it. Adding it unsourced into the lead was always going to be reverted. noq (talk) 22:58, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Oh, 2 hours is not a long time, you are right. I thought it was there for a long timeTuffStuffMcG (talk) 23:24, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Request edit on 19 November 2020

The following sentence

One reason for the decline in tweets and usage is the rise of cancel culture, with Fast Company saying " The platform is now the world’s principal venue for politics and outrage, culture and conversation–the home for both #MAGA and #MeToo."

reads like opinion masquerading as fact. I don't see why it should be included in the article.

131.111.193.104 (talk) 21:21, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Since the source in question talks about usage going up, not down, and since it does not use the term "cancel culture", I have removed that sentence. The Fast Company story is a worthwhile longread and could potentially be used elsewhere in our article. XOR'easter (talk) 01:51, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Only active tool I've found right now appears to be twitter dot com/search-advanced

Articles I've read in past seem to indicate there were previous ones that got removed:

  • search dot twitter dot com
  • twitter dot com/search-home

Both appear to redirect to twitter dot com/explore which admittedly does have a "Search Twitter" bar at the top. Doesn't appear to list "Advanced" easily accessible.

How long as advanced search been up for? Think it's worth mentioning somewhere as a lesser known and useful feature for users. WakandaQT (talk) 07:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Hundreds of Twitter employees called for Trump to be banned (Jan 8)

Could someone mention the internal letter signed by Twitter employees and addressed to Jack Dorsey urging the platform to ban Trump after what happened at the Capitol (before he was permanently banned)? The NBC article used as reference 106 mentions it and links to this Washington Post article as the source. The letter can be found here. I believe it is important enough in Twitter's history to be mentioned. --FDN (talk) 09:57, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Indication of user bias is important for wikipedia

Please see the wikipedia pages for other microblogging sites for precedent. My edits were removed due to citing a single source- I added more sources. All microblogging sites have an indication of the political bias of their userbase. See; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gab_(social_network) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parler — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meisterlone (talk • contribs) 09:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Try putting them in the more appropriate demographics section rather than trying to make out it is a defining characteristic of twitter by putting it right in the first sentence in the lead. noq (talk) 10:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Gab and Parler are defined by their politics in a way that Twitter is not. Moreover, the Pew survey from 2019 found a slight tilt (e.g., 36% of users identified as Democrats, as opposed to 30% of the general population). It's hard to go from those kind of numbers to any grand conclusion, nor do they add up to a defining characteristic that Twitter is "known for". XOR'easter (talk) 15:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
This. If Twitter was routinely called an "X-leaning microblogging site" in the same manner Parler is referenced, then we could do that, but I have not seen that regularly associated with Twitter. I agree that a demographics analysis like that is appropriate in that section, but not the lede. --Masem (t) 16:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
In the current political climate, there may well be people who would like to say that Twitter is left leaning or similar. This is not how it is defined in the sourcing.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:15, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

10% of all Twitter users are responsible for 92% of all published content. Of the cadre of top content providers the vast majority (61% according to Pew Research [1]) self-identify as Democrats or lean toward the Democratic Party politically. This should be highlighted in the article, suggest an edit to the demographics section highlighting that Twitter exhibits a bias in the amount of left leaning political contributions providing a disproportionate voice to a very small number of liberal contributors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basedinvaders (talk • contribs) 20:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

61% is not a "vast majority", and one survey showing a partisan lean of the demographics does not equate to providing a disproportionate voice to a very small number of liberal contributors. It's not our job to make such inferences. XOR'easter (talk) 20:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

"one survey showing a partisan lean of the demographics" is enough to update the article to indicate that the service does have a demonstrated partisan lean... Its not up to you to refute the objective data from a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basedinvaders (talk • contribs) 20:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Actually, there's no guarantee that any one survey is significant enough to warrant inclusion. And even if this one is, it doesn't support the inference that you are attempting to draw from it. XOR'easter (talk) 21:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Twitter is a far left group that seeks to control the freedom of speech.

We're done here. Drmies (talk) 02:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

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.

Just as people like to accuse Parler of being a far right, conspiracy leaning site, Twitter is the same for the left. No blockage of violent articles by far left groups are blocked but the right/Conservatives get blocked. This is due to liberals having little or no values and are easily swayed to change their opinion whereas Conservatives have values and are far less easily manipulated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.113.205 (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for that claim, as required in Wikipedia? HiLo48 (talk) 22:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
without links, editors will close this rant. There are a number of websites writing about Jack Dorsey's celebration of the censorship of Parler with his heart tweet. While that wouldn't indicate that he is "far left", it could indicate that he approves of the censorship of his rivals and those whose speech he disapproves of. This is a bipartisan problem, not a left/right issue. - TuffStuffMcG (talk) 22:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
It's funny that Twitter can supposedly be a far left group when leftists decamped in favor of Mastodon in 2017 in order to build "Twitter without Nazis" [11]. XOR'easter (talk) 22:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


Before the editors "close this rant", here is reliable cited documentation that Twitter has consistently silenced speech from the right and ignored dramatic calls for violence and illegal behavior from the left [2] Suggest edit: Twitter is a left leaning American microblogging and social networking service predominantly utilized for political speech by self identified liberals [3]. Much of Twitter's most prolific political content contributors are socialists, anti-americanists, conspiracy theorists, and left-wing extremists [4]. Posts on the service often contain far-left calls for political inspired violence against conservatives [5] and even children [6]. Basedinvaders (talk) 19:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

These lines read as your opinion attempting to be WP:WIKIVOICE rather than a neutral comment on the topic. (CC) Tbhotch™ 19:30, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Newsbusters and the New York Post are unreliable sources. So are random tweets. XOR'easter (talk) 20:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Sizing up Twitter Users" Pew Research https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/04/24/sizing-up-twitter-users/
  2. ^ "The threats and violence Twitter won’t police" https://nypost.com/2021/01/12/the-threats-and-violence-twitter-wont-police/https://nypost.com/2021/01/12/the-threats-and-violence-twitter-wont-police/
  3. ^ "Pew: Most prolific Twitter users tend to be Democrats, but majority of users still rarely tweet" TechCrunch https://techcrunch.com/2020/10/15/pew-most-prolific-twitter-users-tend-to-be-democrats-but-majority-of-users-still-rarely-tweet/
  4. ^ "Hypocrisy: Twitter Censors Trump, But Not Communist Chinese Propaganda" Newsbusters https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/techwatch/kayla-sargent/2021/01/08/hypocrisy-twitter-censors-trump-not-communist-chinese
  5. ^ "Ricin Suspect Threatened to Kill Trump Over Re-election Campaign, Prosecutors Say" New York Times typohttps://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/22/us/politics/ricin-trump.html
  6. ^ https://twitter.com/n1cksandmann/status/1265805515298426887?lang=en/

yet no mention of the NY Times article... you seem to be a partisan and not an objective reviewer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basedinvaders (talk • contribs) 20:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

The New York Times article contains a passing mention both of Twitter and of Facebook and does not support your claim (Posts on the service often contain far-left calls for political inspired violence against conservatives). XOR'easter (talk) 21:00, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Not my claim... objective fact according to dozens of sources, no convincing ideologues and close minded partisans tho. Won't matter, the political bias of Twitter is well documented and attempting to stem the tide by objecting to facts you don't like aren't going to suppress the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basedinvaders (talk • contribs) 21:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps it is well documented somewhere, but you haven't documented it here. - MrOllie (talk) 21:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
only if you ignore the numerous sources cited above that document Twitter's objective liberal bias quite well Basedinvaders (talk) 21:12, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
By "the numerous sources" you refer to the unreliable sources and WP:SYNTHESIS and Think of the children conclusions you obtained from them? (CC) Tbhotch™ 21:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk pages are not forums WP:NOTFORUM and the cited sources unusable to support the claims, or unreliable. Unless better sources are provided, nothing can be done here. —PaleoNeonate – 22:20, 14 January 2021 (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 11 January 2021

I notice that there is no mention of the concerns related to censorship that are held by millions of Americans - why is that? Wiki definition of Parler received no such concession ... 72.185.204.83 (talk) 16:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Please state a specific request in the form "change X to Y", and provide reliable sources to support your suggestion. Parler is a different website that has received different media coverage and thus naturally has a different Wikipedia article. XOR'easter (talk) 16:55, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
The current article already has various mentions of policies, suspended accounts and even has a "Censorship and moderation" section. —PaleoNeonate – 18:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Twitter develops their first-ever proprietary typeface called Chirp

As per, Twitter's Blog [1], Twitter worked with Grilli Type in Switzerland to develop Chirp, their first-ever proprietary typeface, which was released in January 2021.Shescrafty (talk) 22:40, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

"Twitterati" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Twitterati. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 14#Twitterati until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 18:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

"Trended" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Trended. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 14#Trended until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:11, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

"Followfriday" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Followfriday. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 15#Followfriday until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 23:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

"Twoosh" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Twoosh. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 16#Twoosh until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 10:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

"Trending topics" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Trending topics. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 16#Trending topics until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 10:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect time for first Tweet

The article states that the first Tweet was at 9:50PM PST:

Work on the project started on March 21, 2006, when Dorsey published the first Twitter message at 9:50 p.m. Pacific Standard Time (PST): "just setting up my twttr".

Twitter time stamps are very confusing - it displays the time in the local time zone of the person viewing the Tweet, and NOT the poster. Thus if you do a Google image search for "first ever Tweet" you will see a number of images of the same post by Dorsey, all with different times. On my system (I'm in the UK, currently on GMT) it shows up as 20:50. A friend in Switzerland sees it as 21:50 as he's in the CET timezone.

This means that in fact the Tweet was made at 12:50 PST by Dorsey. Another area of confusion is that 21 March would normally be on PDT now, but this change of time zone didn't take place until 2007 - so 21 March 2006 was indeed PST and not PDT.

LeicesterChris (talk) 12:05, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

"Twestival" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Twestival. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 24#Twestival until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:13, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

"Super follows"

Twitter is adding super follows, see [2][3][4][5]

  1. ^ [1]
  2. ^ "Twitter explores Super Follows for creators to earn money". www.msn.com. Retrieved 2021-02-25.
  3. ^ Conger, Kate (2021-02-25). "Twitter Shakes Off the Cobwebs With New Product Plans". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2021-02-25.
  4. ^ News, A. B. C. "Twitter to let users charge followers to see premium posts". ABC News. Retrieved 2021-02-25. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)
  5. ^ "Twitter Floats Letting Users Charge Followers for Special Access". Bloomberg.com. 2021-02-25. Retrieved 2021-02-25.

Cite error: A list-defined reference has no name (see the help page). Should this be included in the article, or is this TOOSOON? WhoAteMyButter (📨│📝) 21:23, 25 February 2021 (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:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Twitter/Archive_5&oldid=1164856402"