Talk:Casey Newton

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by Theleekycauldron (talk) 00:56, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that Casey Newton's reporting of Elon Musk's acquisition of Twitter led to at least two employees learning through Newton's tweets that they were laid off? Source: https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/trends/twitter-contract-workers-learn-they-have-been-fired-by-reading-tweets-of-others-9520001.html
- ALT1: ... that through Casey Newton's reporting of the acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk, at least two employees had learned that they had been laid off from his tweets?
- ALT2: ... that Casey Newton had informed at least two Twitter employees that they had been laid off by tweets through his reporting of Elon Musk's acquisition of Twitter?
- Reviewed:
- Comment: First DYK nomination! I'm proud of the article. The intention in the hook is to say that the tweets by Newton were the tipoff to the employees learning that they were laid off, not just his reporting.

Moved to mainspace by SWinxy (talk). Self-nominated at 01:58, 20 November 2022 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: @SWinxy: Good article. Hook is interesting, sources seem good, and no QPQ is required. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:55, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SWinxy, Mandarax, Paul2520, Onegreatjoke, Theleekycauldron, and Cwmhiraeth: - I am reopening this nom per issues raised at WP:ERRORS (see [1]). The previously approved hook appears to be based on unreliable sourcing. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 17:05, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In theory, Money Control could have verified the stories independently, but I would expect a line like "We independently verified that these were former Twitter employees who first heard about their being fired this way."

How would a slight hook change be?

ALT2: ... that Casey Newton's reporting of Elon Musk's acquisition of Twitter may have been the first way some ex-Twitter employees learned they were laid off?

OR

ALT3: ... that Casey Newton's reporting on the effects of content moderation on workers has led to a contracting company cutting ties with Facebook? Source: I assume good faith on the Hertz book source.

@SWinxy and Amakuru: = paul2520 💬 19:39, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul2520: Hi Paul. I have been spending less time on Wikipedia and so I forgot to reply. I'd be okay with either of those, with ALT2 > ALT3. SWinxy (talk) 23:03, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Onegreatjoke: or @Amakuru:, would you re-review with ALT2 or ALT3? = paul2520 💬 19:29, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Like others, I'm not that comfortable with the fact that we're citing Moneycontrol (sketchy reputation per WP:RS Noticeboard) and BGR (owned by Penske Media Corp, says it likes accurate reporting, but article essentially sourced to anonymous "company sources" and a random tweet reply) for the hook and in the article. It's also a shame because in fact... There is quite a bit of other secondary coverage (in sources considered reliable enough by WP standards) about Casey Newton's reporting of the ongoing employee-related drama at Twitter! So I think a hook similar to ALT2 might work, or you could have a hook stating that all these other news outlets relied heavily on what Casey Newton is reporting (without getting bogged down in having to vouch for the accuracy of what he was reporting). Regardless, I think in order to do justice to Casey Newton, a bit more additional research, content, and sourcing is required in the article. (I was starting to paste some article links, but a quick Wikipedia Library search yields 139 hits, so there is a lot to choose from.) Cielquiparle (talk) 23:40, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two months have passed since this BLP was flagged at WP:ERRORS. Unless someone is willing to fix the issues with sourcing in the article, and possibly expand it a bit further, it seems like a fair candidate to be disqualified for the main page. Cc: SWinxy, Paul2520 Cielquiparle (talk) 06:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's been so long I'm fine with this expiring. SWinxy (talk) 23:59, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]