Revision as of 03:49, 15 May 2023 editJtbobwaysf (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users12,448 edits →Subsection about Musk's use of Twitter to spread misinformation: cmt← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 07:13, 24 December 2024 edit undoDylnuge (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers3,397 edits Undid revision 1264934656 by Dylnuge (talk)— on second thought, its pointless arguing further hereTag: Undo |
(529 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) |
Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Apps|class=B|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1= |
|
{{WikiProject Companies|class=B|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Technology}} |
|
{{WikiProject Freedom of speech|class=B|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Websites|importance=High|computing-importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Internet|class=B|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Apps|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Blogging}} |
|
{{WikiProject Technology|class=B|b1=yes|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes|b6=yes|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Websites|class=B|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=mid|libertarianism=yes|libertarianism-importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Conservatism|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Freedom of speech|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Internet culture|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Brands|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject California|importance=Mid|sfba=yes|sfba-importance=high}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Internet|importance=High}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{Copied|from=Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk|from_oldid=1128558333|to=Draft:Twitter under Elon Musk|date=December 20, 2022|to_diff=1128559638|to_oldid=1128559220}} |
|
|
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
{{Annual readership|expanded=yes}} |
|
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 100k |
|
|
|counter = 3 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|
|algo = old(90d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:Twitter under Elon Musk/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Copied |
|
|
|from1=Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk |
|
|
|from_oldid1=1128558333 |
|
|
|to1=Draft:Twitter under Elon Musk |
|
|
|date1=December 20, 2022 |
|
|
|to_diff1=1128559638 |
|
|
|to_oldid1=1128559220 |
|
|
|from2=Twitter |
|
|
|to2=X (social network) |
|
|
|date2=June 2, 2024 |
|
|
|to_diff2=1226863755 |
|
|
|old_id2=1226863477 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Old moves |
|
|
| collapse = false |
|
|
|
|
|
| date1 = 24 July 2023 |
|
|
| from1 = Twitter under Elon Musk |
|
|
| destination1 = X (social network) |
|
|
| result1 = not moved |
|
|
| link1 = Talk:Twitter under Elon Musk/Archive 1#Requested move 24 July 2023 |
|
|
|
|
|
| date2 = 24 May 2024 |
|
|
| from2 = Twitter under Elon Musk |
|
|
| destination2 = X (social network) |
|
|
| result2 = not moved |
|
|
| link2 = Talk:Twitter under Elon Musk/Archive 2#Requested move 24 May 2024 |
|
|
|
|
|
| list = |
|
|
''Please see the extensive list of discussions at {{slink|Twitter|Old moves}}''{{pb}} |
|
|
|
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Annual readership|expanded=true}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== ] == |
|
== break something == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, again. You read that right. ] (]) 05:52, 27 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
{{ping|InfiniteNexus}}, I see this article is "in sync" with |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:•'''Support''' its more better known as X ] ] 18:04, 9 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
I made |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Remove infobox from this article == |
|
Did I break something or should I have made this edit using a sync tool? First time I have seen this "sync" used. Is there an autosync tool being used for this? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The "X" infobox does not make sense being here, as the article for X is at ]. It is a duplicate infobox which can only confuse readers. ] (]) 18:13, 17 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
Thanks! ] (]) 08:06, 21 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:It's manually synced. The revision linked at the top of the page is the version of ] that this draft was last synced to (by me). That version did not include the text you added. ] (]) 20:05, 21 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::Thank you for clarification. Do you think this article is ready to go live or we need to add other content? ] (]) 01:20, 23 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Let's take this to ]. ] (]) 18:21, 23 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:@] Here is why I think so. What do you think ] (]) 18:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
==name== |
|
|
|
:You are correct, that infobox was entirely inappropriate for this article. Thank you for removing it. ] (]) 18:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
I was wondering about names for this article. We already have ] and that would at some point in time cover all that is twitter. We do have this interim period where we have ] which covers a distinct event. Here we are considering creating a new article that would somehow bridge the gap between the events surrounding the acquisition and Musk's transition to full management control of the company. I'll make a list below, feel free to edit and comment. Thanks! ] (]) 01:35, 23 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::There's no such a thing as a "no duplicate infoboxes" rule, so there's no need to remove it. It comes in the package from the moment it was decided to have a "Twitter under Elon Musk" article distinct from the "Twitter" article. ] (]) 18:33, 17 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
Thus should we call this |
|
|
|
:::{{Reply|Cambalachero}} What package? Infobox website isn't a part of any package as far as I can tell and infobox website is not an appropriate infobox for a page about a specific era of a website's history not the website itself. ] (]) 20:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
* Twitter under Elon Musk |
|
|
|
:FYI, this was added when this article was briefly moved to ] as part of a split of ] before this was overturned by move review. ] (]) 00:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
* Management changes at Twitter under Elon Musk |
|
|
* Twitter post-acquisition |
|
|
* <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 01:36, 23 December 2022 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
::I find the current title to be concise enough, do you not agree? ] (]) 18:18, 23 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I am ok with it. Was just feeling things out. ] (]) 00:44, 24 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::::That's fair. ] (]) 01:26, 24 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Merge? == |
|
== "accusations of pro-Republican bias" == |
|
|
] has twice reverted my remoavel of the statement that the recent NPR-related controversy has led to ""accusations of pro-Republican bias" -but as I noted when I removed this, none of the 3 sources for that statement actually make that claim. Please don't add it again unless you have also add a reliable source that explicitly says that, thanks. ] (]) <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added 13:52, 7 April 2023 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:Be careful the boomerang here. You are talking about another very senior editor reverting the same content that I also reverted? Starting to look like ], be careful you wont be editing this article much longer if it continues. ] (]) 07:34, 8 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::I don't understand what you mean. Either the sources say there were accusations of pro-Republican bias, or they don't. If they don't , it doesn't matter if a "very senior editor", or even two, want to say that, it can't stay in the article. ] (]) 12:54, 8 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::] In the local parlance and jargon, this is called "]". You are correct in removing any material not backed by the source. You are also correct in understanding that it's '''''what''''' that actually matters, not '''''who'''''. |
|
|
:::For the rest of that… stuff… always be mindful of potential boomerangs, but nevermind the bollocks. Happy Trails! -- ] '''</sup></span>]] 23:54, 22 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Merge this article with ] ] ] 18:08, 9 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Layoffs == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:@] Why? Maybe with ], if anything. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</sub> 08:33, 14 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
I thought Musk stated in the Tucker Carlson interview recently that he had cut 80% of staff. less than 2k staff in Feb. 26, 2023. In the () interview this month he stated he cut from just under 8k staff to 1500 staff. Seems there is more (up to date) in the public domain than we are currently stating. Comments? ] (]) 05:50, 19 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:We can mention his latest comments, but we shouldn't remove the old numbers. ] (]) 17:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
::Ah. That seems better to merge. ] ] 00:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
::Agree, the old numbers show a timeframe of layoffs and is encyclopedic. ] (]) 17:32, 19 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== This article has major neutrality problems == |
|
== Subsection about Musk's use of Twitter to spread misinformation == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
While looking for material for the ], I ended up copying more than half of the content from here to there. Which also shows that this article is grossly unbalanced towards criticism of Twitter post-acquisition period. I suggest summarizing much of the criticism (it is now copied to a dedicated article where it is more ]); it would be also good to expand this article here with something "nice" to say about this topic (if possible). I presume some folks praise Twitter/X and its evolution under Musk - their views don't seem to be represented here in a due fashion (unless I am wrong and Twitter is being nearly universally criticized in the past few years...). <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</sub> 08:31, 14 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
It is now abundantly clear that Musk is using Twitter to spread misinformation; see . We should at least address the behavior in the article, ideally by referring to this example and others. ] (]) 07:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:I was initially on the same track as you, but doing an overview of sources not on the page indicates that the coverage is almost universally negative. The best I can find is people praising Musk's acquisition of the platform but for the period where Twitter is actually under Elon Musk I'm drawing a pretty big blank. ] (]) 15:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
:We need a litany of RS for this claim. AP News is also well known to spread misinformation. Pot calling the kettle black here... ] (]) 03:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:Happy to include all of these "positive" aspects of X that you talk of, if they now exist from RS that is. Per above comment they don't though, so the ] is accurate. Also please don't overlook all the quote tweets from Musk based on secondary, as that's as NPOV as you can get, given X categorically don't engage with the media directly either (so no other rebuttals etc). It's ironic as not so long ago it was argued that these quote tweets weren't due, and now there are POV concerns. So I appreciate the compliment overall, as in the meantime the content hasn't changed all that much. If anything, there have been more positives/neutral content included :) ] (]) 19:46, 14 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:If anything, ] strikes me as a textbook example of a POV fork. ] <sup>(] • ])</sup> 20:14, 15 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::Agreed, breaking off Criticism of Twitter was a mistake. ] (]) 20:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::Based on ] of ] (ie ]), then I can understand how the split was legitimate rather than a ]. Personally I'd find it impossible to argue against a split of such an oversized article for this reason alone. However the irony being that the child was created but it wasn't a ] due to lack of summarising and attribution. ] (]) 21:35, 15 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Attribution is in the edit history. As for lack of summarizing, this can be done by editors more familiar with the main articles; frankly, this on here strikes me as so bad (]) I'd rather AFD this or just redirect this to the Critcism... which is perfectly in line with similar articles (] and like). <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</sub> 00:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Or maybe you're just wrong about this being an attack page and "Twitter is being nearly universally criticized in the past few years." You haven't actually presented a strong argument that this is an attack page. ] (]) 00:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::In which case the topic is Twitter, not Musk, and summarizing much content here which is not at ] could be a solution. But if we shorten this page, does it even need to exist, given that it was split from Twitter's main history page/section as too long? <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</sub> 02:22, 17 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::According to the talk page history this page was split off from ] not ] or ]. It also wasn't split for length, it was split for context (at some point acquisition became post-acquisition) ] (]) 04:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::You think this page {{tq|exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject}}? Can you provide examples of the content on this page that is so bad that it meets that criteria? ] <sup>(] • ])</sup> 03:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Actually, yes, I think this page is an undue criticism of Musk covered by ATTACKPAGE. I do however see the consensus here is against me, and I don't care about this topic that much; if all of you think it is fine, maybe you see something I don't. But if someone decides to AFD this, do ping me. A discussion at ] could be a less nuclear option, perhaps. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</sub> 02:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::I'm just trying to understand what you think is so bad. Can you provide examples? ] <sup>(] • ])</sup> 18:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Given A) no specific examples of problematic content were provided and B) a rough consensus among participants in this discussion (and the ]) that coverage here was widely negative, and thus the page accurately reflects coverage, I have removed the NPOV maintenance template. |
|
|
:::::::@], I would personally encourage you to consider self-reverting the bold split you made to ] and instead starting a clear split discussion here or at ]. Making a bold change and then insisting people bring it to AFD to undo it feels like an attempt to ]. There have been numerous discussions about how to organize this content, many of us responding have disagreed in those discussions, and yet I see broad agreement that this split was not a good idea. Consensus on this does not need to come from AFD to be legitimate. ] <sup>(] • ])</sup> 20:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::The talk page is fine for establishing consensus for removal of NPOV template, but if you want to delete another article, AfD is that'a'way. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</sub> 23:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Second. ] (]) 05:32, 17 December 2024 (UTC) |