Talk:Gettr

Edit war re:linking to Capitol Attack

It seems User:Bushman826 and others (including inadvertantly myself) have engaged in a edit war over linking to the 2021 United States Capitiol Attack, removing that link and replacing it with e.g "peaceful protests" (not linked) This has reached the point of breaking the 3 revert guideline by User:Bushman826 C.f https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring This should stop. Cross-linking Wikipedia articles is important, and doing so by name simply makes sense. --Oxinabox (talk) 23:15, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Link in previous message has typo. Should have been 2021 United States Capitol attack. --Oxinabox (talk) 23:17, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

FYI I've already requested page protection due to the slew of POV-pushing and vandalism. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:36, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

It is quite obvious that there is some serious bias being placed here. I had a link from Reuters removed for no reason, along with other edits with verified sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bushman826 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Reuters is still sourced in the article, see cite 6. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:52, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2021

The content featured countless racist and anti-Semitic language including the N-word and calls to kill or lynch black people. 2600:387:B:7:0:0:0:8F (talk) 03:31, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: The article already mentions the platform hosted racist, anti-Semitic content. Please provide sources for the calls to lynch black people. Living Concrete (talk) 03:53, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

To add to article

Basic information to add to this article: the name of the foundation tied to Guo Wengui. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 05:36, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Have you got a source that gives it? Miller has just referred to it as the "Guo family foundation", but the sources are not treating that as a proper noun. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 13:42, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Description of GETTR as a platform for racism/anti-Semitism/misogyny in the lead

Shouldn't there be a description of GETTR as a platform that allows for racism, misogyny, and anti-Semitism in the lead? This has been discussed in multiple reliable sources including Vox Media's Recode (https://www.vox.com/recode/22559493/gettr-jason-miller-trump-app-social-media-facebook-twitter-free-speech-cancel-culture) which describes GETTR as "the app is in many ways a knockoff of Twitter, it doesn’t have a lot of users yet, and it’s already a home for blatantly racist posts that would be taken down on most other platforms." NeneCaretaker (talk) 15:05, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@NeneCaretaker: Do you have some wording you would suggest? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:17, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I would suggest that we describe in as neutral a way as possible that GETTR "has been described as a platform that fosters extremist views including racism, anti-Semitism, and misogyny." If this was a BLP, I would say that this is off-limits but GETTR is not a BLP so our guidelines involving reliable sources is what should apply here. NeneCaretaker (talk) 21:57, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Here's another source that could work, perhaps? (https://www.theverge.com/2021/7/6/22566043/conservative-social-networks-keep-making-the-same-mistake) Not sure how helpful it would be though, its mention of GETTR links to the Vox source. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 22:17, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@NeneCaretaker: Which sources would you use for that? I'm not sure the sources support the fairly strong claim that the platform "fosters extremist views"—most sources seem to just be noticing the prevalence of such content in the early days following the site's launch. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:31, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right. Maybe instead of "fosters extremist views" we can state that GETTR is known for having a prevalence of extremist content. That would be more neutral language. NeneCaretaker (talk) 03:05, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I've added two sentences to the lead, let me know if this is what you were thinking of. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:12, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

There should be space for this observation on the page, but I'm not sure it is notable enough to be included in the intro. There is only one source cited, written by one journalist. Including it in the intro is arguable, but certainly the single journalist cited does not support the claim that: "Journalists (plural) noted the prevalence..." Do you have additional noteworthy sources? 2600:6C44:427F:2101:A8C5:135B:3F27:69B6 (talk) 00:12, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

See Gettr#Content. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I see plenty to support the "extreme content" claim in the intro, but nothing to support the "racism and antisemitism" claim. Perhaps the Vox citation should be moved to this section, and the "racism and antisemitism" part of that sentence should be moved down there with it, since it is the only source cited for that particular claim, and it isn't mentioned mentioned anywhere in the body. 2600:6C44:427F:2101:31FB:EF35:94AA:168B (talk) 19:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

If you are looking for other sources besides Vox that support the statement, the Politico source (#30) does as well. I'm happy to add a few more sources if you like, was mostly trying to avoid WP:CITEBOMBing. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:37, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

(Done.) GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:50, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2021

Please remove - Journalists noted the prevalence of extreme content on the platform, including racism and antisemitism.[7][8] There are no facts to back it up. The best the journalist could com up with is that Gettr allows free speech. The journalist is blinded with Bias and total disregard to the 1st Amendment. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. 2600:1004:B00B:723B:3813:EA70:CCDF:76C1 (talk) 16:07, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The statement is supported by two reliable sources, and the fact that you disagree with the journalists does not change that fact. You might find User:GorillaWarfare/Primer#The statement that ought to be changed has a citation useful in learning more about how best to go about suggesting changes to sourced content, because claiming that "the journalist is blinded with Bias and total disregard to the 1st Amendment" is not it. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:14, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2021

Please add content noting that GETTR "is inundated with terrorist propaganda spread by supporters of Islamic State" and "features reams of jihadi-related material, including graphic videos of beheadings, viral memes that promote violence against the West, and even memes of a militant executing Trump in an orange jumpsuit similar to those used in Guantanamo Bay."

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/08/02/trump-gettr-social-media-isis-502078 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmjohnston42 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

This is already mentioned in Gettr#Content. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:40, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2021

Please, for clear disclosure, stop allowing liberals from destroying Wikipedia. All I see is propaganda being sourced by the likes of Slate, Vice, Vox and Politico. All of these are super left publications. At least have a little integrity. 2601:100:8181:3880:80D0:AA57:4A86:A05A (talk) 06:00, 16 September 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. — LauritzT (talk) 08:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Criticisms and Controversies

It seems as if to keep the criticisms and controversies better organized, a new section should be created just for that with the below text from the "History" section being moved to that new section. Thoughts?

"The platform was briefly hacked on its launch day. Some high-profile Gettr accounts, including those of Miller, U.S. representative Majorie Taylor Greene, former secretary of state Mike Pompeo, and Bannon were compromised and had their account names changed to show the name of the alleged attacker and a message supporting Palestine. A few days later, a hacker was able to scrape almost 90,000 email addresses through their application programming interface."

Shelbyhoward423 (talk) 17:15, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

See WP:CRITS. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Stylization of GETTR spelling

I recently tried to edit the spelling of GETTR to it's all-capitalized stylization from the way it is currently referenced in the article, which is "gettr." There's a case to be made through WP:COMMONNAME that the name should be stylized in the all-caps manner for ease of understanding by lay-readers. Are other editors willing to get on board with this? Also, because I was flagged as being associated with GETTR, I am publicly declaring that I have no conflict of interest associated with them. I am simply interested in editing this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Upside WikiWriter (talk • contribs) 14:10, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Please see MOS:TMSTYLE. This article follows the guideline, which is to mention the stylization in the first sentence, and then use the regular ("Gettr") casing throughout. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:15, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Shouldn't the title of the page be in all-caps per the name of the site? In this case there is then reason to make the stylization "GETTR" throughout. Upside WikiWriter (talk) 18:20, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Again, MOS:TMSTYLE is the guidance on that, and is why we do not uppercase it (in the article title or throughout). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:15, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Unclear language

This line: "Gettr's terms of service allow but do not commit the platform to removing content that is "offensive, obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, pornographic, violent, harassing, threatening, abusive, illegal, or otherwise objectionable or inappropriate", makes no sense. "Allows but does not commit the platform to remove?" Should this perchance read "disallows"?

Next line, same 'graf: "In an appearance on Newsmax, Miller touted the app as a 'place people won't be canceled', and described the site's moderation system, which he said had already identified 'left-of-center people' to 'catch them and delete some of that content'. Are the "left of center people" catching, or being caught? I had to read this line several times to form a clear idea of what it's probably trying to say. (Even without the typo I fixed.)

Could someone familiar with the subject repair these humbugs? Laodah 04:10, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@Laodah: Thanks for pointing these out! Sometimes it's hard to see weirdness in your own writing. The first sentence is meant to say that their TOS says that they may remove content of those types, but does not commit them to removing such content. I've rephrased it. I've also adjusted the second sentence you mention. Is it sufficiently clear now? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:51, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: Perfect! Thanks! Laodah 23:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Launch Date

Can we change the launch date in the sidebar to July 4th? Many reputable sources list that as the date of launch, not July 4th. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Upside WikiWriter (talk • contribs) 16:45, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I've just put both dates in, with an explanation. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Character assassination & propaganda in the lead

I will remove the term alt-tech from the lead and move it to a section specified for criticism or opinions. And my rationale is:

• The term alt-tech is a slur word that was pushed by far-left & leftist intellectuals and activists. It's related to criticism, opinions, and or viewpoints and is not an Objective word to be attributed to any social media platform in the lead room. It violates WP:Biased, WP:Neutral and WP:Lead. Also, this justification "that numerous media used it" is invalid, since those are highly hostile and biased when it comes to these specific subject matters, related to right-wing personalities or organizations. As to the fact that right-wing slur words pushed by right-wing media are not used as objective terms in Wikipedia, the opposite of that must not be executed too. Wikipedia is not a battlefield for a political adversary, character assassination, defamation, and slurring. Its content must remain neutral and objective.
• People who created GETTR (including Miller) are not far-right (or alt-right) they are republicans & have been known as right-wing conservatives. They never identified as alt-right or never accepted it, instead, they repetitively denounced the term. And since the platform is highly tied to its founders' & administrators' vision, it must not be described as something completely far from its founder's intentions.
• The criticisms that were used to back this term (such as allowing pornography or Islamic terrorists) are also valid toward other social media platforms including Twitter, and on a much larger scale and with much bigger impact, but no one from Wikipedians put those criticisms in the lead, simply because it violates the policies related to the lead. Finally, we don't have a double standard for right-wingers here, so I will add that term to a section specified for criticism as a term used by leftist critiques. Best Regards. The Stray Dog Talk Page 22:59, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't object to the removal, since I'm not sure whoever added this term also added a source that actually describes it as such. If such sourcing is available then we could discuss the rest of your claims about the term in more detail, but at this point I'm not sure there's much reason to since I have no objection to the removal. I have, however, undone the rest of the edit, per WP:CRITS and MOS:LEAD. The other sentence you moved was summarizing the Content section. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:35, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Dear colleague, thanks for your opinion. The "summarizing content" argument is valid, and we must make sure it's not a political adversary content. Obviously, the platform is new and in comparison to its competitors it's a low budget, therefore the cause of those errors, while not mentioned in the criticism, most likely happened due to a lack of logistics to terminate the sensitive contents and execute the rules, since the rules clearly suggest that pornography and terrorism are not allowed, and not necessarily due to a lack of commitment. Besides, apparently, when it comes to right-wing articles or platforms, certain groups of editors systematically utilize the most biased and toxic methods of editing, rather than objective and neutral. Again, the criticism targeting GETTR is valid to the leftist-run social media platforms like Twitter too (and as I said, on a much larger scale and with a much bigger impact). For the record, Twitter allowed child pornography, allowed or verified the accounts of the terrorists like the Taliban, ignored its own rules on violence, and so on. Then the "summarizing content" argument, we have to add a summarized criticism of Twitter's article's lead, since it lacks any criticism. And this process must be applied to all social media articles. And I'm not unwilling to do that. Best Regards. The Stray Dog Talk Page 01:27, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

If you have the reliable sources to support your theories about causation, feel free to present them. As for changes to other articles, please suggest your changes on those articles' talk pages. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:57, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Pure opinion (and projection), not germane to Wikipedia. Jibal (talk) 21:53, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

This opinionated rant is not germane to Wikipedia. Jibal (talk) 21:51, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Adding Subsection for "Censorship and Moderation"

I would like to add the subsection "Censorship and Moderation" to include more content around how the app works without getting it removed. Any suggestions? @GorillaWarfare Thanks for your help

Shelbyhoward423 (talk) 17:24, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@Shelbyhoward423: Did you see my edit summaries? My main concern with your edit before is that a lot of content in the Content section is relevant to moderation, whereas the section header suggests that all discussion of moderation would be in that subsection. Perhaps you could retitle the current Content section to "Content and moderation", and add any new information to that existing section?

You mention "censorship", but in your previous edit you didn't add any reliable sources supporting the usage of the term. "Censorship" is a pretty loaded term, and although there is a lot of the contemporary discussion about "social media censorship", particularly among the American political right, what they are describing realistically shouldn't be called "censorship" in wikivoice. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:39, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: Thanks for your response and explanation. Twitter has the section "Censorship and Moderation". I was hoping by adding one, the information would look more fluid like the Twitter article.

Shelbyhoward423 (talk) 21:04, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Most of the discussion of censorship in that section on the Twitter page is describing Censorship of Twitter—that is, government censorship. As far as I'm aware there have been no similar actions against Gettr. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:13, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

section "Content"

Starts to get rambly and unencyclopedic around "According to the Institute for Strategic Dialogue" to the end of the section. Going to rework this in a bit.. Sucker for All (talk) 23:34, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Claim about intent is is not backed by references

The first sentence says Gettr is "intended for American conservatives.[5][6][7]"

None of the three references support the claim that Gettr is intended for American conservatives. They all mention conservatives, but none of them make any mention of the site owners' *intentions* for whom it is for, which is a very different thing.

It may well be true that Gettr is intended for conservatives, but if so, the claim needs to be backed up in some way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Denbosch (talk • contribs) 13:46, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@Denbosch: I restored the original phrasing of "targeted to" (which was changed to "intended for" just yesterday), since that was the last phrasing used in the article for the longest. Does this seem like better phrasing, or does anyone have a suggestion on how to rewrite the first sentence? Personally, I have no opinion at the moment, but restored per WP:BRD.

Also, pinging Philip Cross, since they added "intended for" (and have much more experience than I do), and may have some input here. - Whisperjanes (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I think "targeted to" has the same problem – it still means that Gettr's creators/owners are intending it for a conservative audience, which isn't supported by any of the references. I wouldn't be surprised if Gettr's creators/owners do intend to target a conservative audience (after all, the next sentence says it was founded by a former Trump aide), but this is not stated as an intention on their website, as far as I can tell. It seems to be more generally 'free speech' focused. I guess it could be changed to "associated with American conservatives" (which would technically be supported by the references) but this seems a bit weasel-wordy. I suggest just removing "targeted to American conservatives", unless anyone can find a reference supporting this specific claim.

I removed "targeted" because it implies criticism, which is not a claim in any of the cited sources. They do link Gettr to followers of Trump and others of a similar political persuasion banned from outlets like Twitter as a motivation for creating the platform. Philip Cross (talk) 18:56, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I read "targeted" as "marketed to", not criticism, but there's probably an alternative in the sources like "gettr is popular with american conservatives". tedder (talk) 22:32, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I've changed this now as there was clear political biased involved and the links did support the claim. I have added an interview with the founder where he clearly states the site is for everyone. (https://wjla.com/news/nation-world/gettr-ceo-youre-not-going-to-get-de-platformed-simply-for-expressing-a-political-view) --Hontogaichiban (talk) 15:19, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

The intended audience should come from a primary source and placement moved.

Given that target audience of a product is determined by the creator of the product it makes little sense to attribute the target audience through a secondary source such a news article. The app description in both major app stores doesn't mention the word "conservative" or exclusion/discouragement of anyone based on political ideology. That being said it could be argued that if a characterization must be made outside the primary source then it should be done so based on individually citable features, terms, and condition present in the product and the formulation of the characterization should stated as "appears to be" in order to clarify this is a conclusion reached by the a secondary source and not the creator of the product. In addition to this the placement of this mention is out of line to the majority of social networking services on documented on Wikipedia which makes the information seem disjointed and disorganized. 208.189.3.2 (talk) 04:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles must be primarily based in secondary sources, not primary ones. WP:PRIMARY. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:26, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Primary sources are, by their nature, POV and unreliable. Here's some reliable reporting: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/03/26/gettr-guo-wengui-social-media/ Jibal (talk) 21:59, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I've changed this now, as it was clearly wrong to say the site for conservatives when there was no source and in this interview it is clearly stated by the founder himself that the site was intended for 'everyone'. (https://wjla.com/news/nation-world/gettr-ceo-youre-not-going-to-get-de-platformed-simply-for-expressing-a-political-view). --Hontogaichiban (talk) 15:20, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I've reverted. In addition to being improperly formatted, Wikipedia strongly prefers independent sources, and Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion or advocacy. I dispute that the quote belongs at all, but it was definitely given excessive prominence. The founder himself is not an impartial source for information about his own company, and using quotes like this to define the entire topic fails WP:NPOV. Grayfell (talk) 20:06, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• ScreenshotTimeline.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

GETTR followers: Joe Rogen has 1.2 million. Not "imported"

Misleading claim that GETTR "following" is imported.
There are 2 notations on GETTR, one of which is just GETTR followers. Joe Rogan has 1.2 million GETTR Followers
https://www.gettr.com/user/joerogan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.38.104.150 (talk) 15:38, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Remove "targeted to American conservative"

There's multiple primary sources including both google and iOS stores descriptions stating the platform is intended for everyone. In addition to this the founder Jason Miller has never stated that the platform is targeting American conservatives. It seems like an unnecessary detail that is supported by sources that contradict several primary sources. In addition to this other articles for similar platforms (f.ex. Twitter) don't include target audience. 65.66.76.235 (talk) 03:25, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

This is a willful violation of Wikipedia policy. This change was discussed earlier on this page and rejected. Consensus is needed before making such changes. And the evidence strongly contradicts your argument based on unreliable and POV primary sources: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/03/26/gettr-guo-wengui-social-media/ Jibal (talk) 22:03, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes I agree. That part stood out to me. As you've already said, there's nothing that suggests such. I was gonna start a discussion on this. Victor obini (talk) 15:28, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Edit Request 2 April 2022

This article is currently semi-protected through December 1, 2022, which seems arbitrary and prevents significant updates, detailed below. Kindly requesting un-protection.

• Logo (has been stale for some time), should be changed to match website logo
• Introduction: total users # is stale; total downloads # is stale (at least 6.8M per https://mashable.com/article/truth-social-downloads-drop-donald-trump); "targeted to conservatives" (debatable); second paragraph is too stale for an intro at this point and perhaps belongs in background and/or criticism.
• Background : omits criticisms of "big tech" that long preceded January 6; decision to begin with January 6 is not neutral or clear; mentions Trump's blog (relevance?); citation of "for several months" "Trump's team" "teased" but does not specify which months, or what "Trump's team" means; only uses Gettr launch news as its citation (not a valid citation, by itself, for the foregoing remarks)
• History: this section should be editable at this point, to include potentially noteworthy developments in past 4 months; omits number of new users since 1/4/22 (1/4 seems to be an arbitrary cutoff); history section ends with citing 9-month old July 2021 claim "also creates GETTR accounts for [twitter] followers," which is demonstrably false and has been false since July 10, 2021 per https://mashable.com/article/gettr-twitter-block-automated-tweet-import; relatedly, section should not end with an old item from "July 2021" - it should be chronological, not suddenly reverse chronological at the end with mention of "July 2021"; by leaving July 2021 comment at end of history, old history is being displayed as if it is new and current, but it is clearly neither new nor current, it is now old and incorrect; section could have sub-sections (wall of text)
• Content: can be updated with citations from numerous interviews / news coverage in past nine months; they now have trust and safety staff per Google / LinkedIn and user content guidelines on the platform; last sentence of second paragraph begins with "however," even though the sentence does not clearly conflict with the prior sentence and also not being contextualized with similar claims that could be cited regarding peer platforms, e.g., 3/31/22 NYT article re "millions" of potential CSAM on Facebook; section should have sub-sections (it is becoming a "wall of text")
• See Also: "alt tech" is included but the platform is not listed on alt-tech's actual page, which is inconsistent. if "alt tech" is on the GETTR page, the platform should be listed in alt-tech page, otherwise "alt tech" should be removed from "See also" on the GETTR page
• Miscellaneous: uppercase GETTR would be reasonable and quite justified as it is an initialism, and also is an "[abbreviation] whose pronunciation involves the combination of letter names with words" (see https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Acronym#Nomenclature) and also is a trademark (see USPTO TESS system entries for serial numbers 90809197 and 90809200, can be found at https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/search (click search TESS then "basic word mark search"). Compare with pages for LinkedIn, IKEA, PlayStation, iPhone, TikTok, YouTube. The platform uses all-caps throughout its apps and on its iOS / Google Play Store app download pages; if "widely used' is the standard, it seems that the only reason it is becoming the standard is that this wikipedia page is locked and is setting the standard, which is not the appropriate impact/use of wikipedia
• In short, opening for editing would be very justified, at which point there should be the usual back-and-forth / review of edits. Keeping it semi-protected (with a date ending after the 2022 elections) also feeds claims of big tech control / censorship and feeds conspiracy theorist claims about election manipulation (three weeks after the midterm elections?)

98.109.117.71 (talk) 03:22, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request.

Re: Request 1; Do you have a file hosted on Wikipedia or on Commons of the new logo? Happy Editing--IAmChaos 03:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

See https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:GETTR_LOGO_SVG_401x170.svg 174.251.64.15 (talk) 17:21, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:04, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

• A reply from the admin who protected this article to the anonymous IP address in the NYC metro area: It's a bit disingenuous to claim "big tech control /censorship" and "election manipulation" when all it would require for you to edit this article is to take 15 seconds to register an account. Only anonymous, unregistered users are prohibited from editing this article until December 2022. All registered users can still edit this article (as long as they are autoconfirmed, which only takes a few days). This is because every time the page was unprotected, anonymous users immediately resumed vandalizing it. If I unprotect it now, the vandalism will almost certainly resume within a matter of hours. So, I'm not going to unprotect it. If you'd like to make changes to this article, feel free to continue making edit requests here, or consider registering an account. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 21:28, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

April 2022 changes

Copernicus43728 currently seems to be in process of whitewashing this article. Compare oldid 1079110363 to current. The most blatant whitewashing is in the removal of The platform experienced issues shortly after launch, including internet trolls posting content that violated the terms of service, users flooding it with pornography, and the brief hacking of some high-profile accounts.[14][15][16][17][18][19] Journalists have observed the prevalence of extreme content on the platform, including racism, antisemitism, and terrorist propaganda.[20][21][22][23] Thoughts from other editors, GorillaWarfare? Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 17:36, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

No whitewashing here. Changes made reflect the items raised in the April 2 talk page entry. Review them line-by-line for accuracy and closely review the sources, many of which were misrepresented in the Wikipedia article. Many claims were made without any quantifiable of objective measures, making claims that the articles themselves did not make. The language you cite *remains in the article*, in criticisms and controversies, where it belongs, and elsewhere in the article. Almost all edits were *additions* — not removals. Copernicus43728 (talk) 18:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Further, rather than accusing an editor of “whitewashing,” I think it would have been more respectful to focus on substantive concerns (if any), in detail. Copernicus43728 (talk) 18:02, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Were you also User:98.109.117.71? Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 19:25, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

@Copernicus43728: Your edits were reverted, so I would suggest bringing one issue at a time to the Talk Page and establishing consensus for each before making further edits. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 22:17, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Actually I'd like to restore oldid 1079110363 in toto, but I took the middle road of adding back the most shockingly whitewashed sentences and tagging all the other expanded sections appropriately. Do you agree with a restoration of oldid 1079110363 and discussions on talk for every addition? In my opinion oldid 1079110363 is better than current text. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 23:02, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

@Pyrrho the Skipper: Forgot ping. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 23:03, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I think it would be much fairer to start where we are, given that right now it’s more comprehensive and that virtually all of the changes were additions. It’s much easier and much fairer for everyone, IMO, to go forward by talking through new proposed edits to remove what you think is irrelevant than to undo all of my changes and then make me go through the work twice. If I had largely *removed* content, a wholesale reversal would be more reasonable, in order to reclaim lost content. {{ping|Psiĥedelisto}} Copernicus43728 (talk) 00:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto@Pyrrho the Skipper Copernicus43728 (talk) 00:33, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto: @Copernicus43728: My feeling here is that oldid 1079110363 should be restored, and we should work from there, one item at a time, because even though they were WP:BOLD edits, and we should AGF, so many major and potentially controversial changes were made on 4/10 that, could, and probably should, be scrutinized, one at a time. I think that's reasonable, personally. Copernicus, I know that was a lot of work, but it's not all in vain, as you're now prepared to make these requests with the research/work you've done. But one at a time is better since we're all volunteers and need to work slowly and thoughtfully. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 02:01, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

We can review them one at a time. Why not just go through the page as is and start suggesting each edit you care to make, rather than removing everything and requiring me to re-justify all of them? Shouldn’t the onus be on those with requests for changes to identify the change? Why not just go ahead and start making edits (or edit suggestions) and if I disagree, I can then discuss here? To wind back the clock and then make me do one-by-one requests defeats the point of being an autoconfirmed user and inverts the purpose of semi-protection — which is not to force one-by-one changes, but to prevent non-users from making changes. I’m a user/editor, I made additions, and to say that I should now have to re-make them all is completely unfair. Should I now have to request why the logo should be new? Then request why the screenshot should not be blurry? The entire talk page entry from 4/2/22 laid out many suggested changes. Account registration was requested per Scotty Wong ***as an alternative to suggesting one-by-one edits***. I complied. Now you are saying, “not good enough, undo everything,” rather than just getting to the business of specifying new edits you wish to make. That doesn’t make sense to me. You can see the changes easily. So why not start pointing out the ones you care about, or new edits you want to make? Why ask to revert everything, and restore a page to a disorganized state, and then ask me to do what will be a time-consuming, slow, and laborious piecemeal request? There is no true justification to put that burden on me given that you have not even identified any significant removals requiring restoration. Why make everything more difficult? This isn’t logical to me and it’s also highly inefficient. Copernicus43728 (talk) 04:05, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Note that starting from where we are does not mean we cannot go through your suggested changes one-by-one/slowly. At all. So, let’s begin. Looking at the page right now (which, again, includes everything that was there before), what is the first thing you want to change?@Pyrrho the Skipper@Pyrrho the Skipper You can even go ahead and make it and then comment here and I’ll review it and let you know if I have any issue. I might not, and then we can go to your next desired change quickly. . Copernicus43728 (talk) 04:07, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Because if it worked like that, I could go in and and make twenty ridiculous edits to a controversial article and say anything I want, and then expect editors to go through one-by-one and challenge me on each ridiculous edit (not saying yours are ridiculous, necessarily, just that they could be). That would make Wikipedia unreadable. Thus, we have the bold, revert, discuss cycle. That means YOU did something bold by making a ton of content changes, all in a string, on a controversial topic, all by yourself, as one editor. You did them as separate edits, rather than one, but the less-controversial ones are mixed in there and on controversial articles If you contribute to a controversial article then it can be handy to separate the non-controversial contributions from the controversial ones. First make the non-controversial edits and then the (suspected) controversial ones. Now I, or any other editor, can boldy revert that string of edits, because putting the onus on us to parse through your controversial edits is unfair. Thus, according to the cycle, it is now on you to bring your edits to to the Talk Page Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 04:38, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. Also, to repeat the ignored question—Copernicus43728, were you also previously the editor 98.109.117.71? Not implying any rulebreaking, just, you immediately pointed me to their section, which seems bizarre if you're not them, so as this discussion continues I want to know if 98.109.117.71's contribution to it can be read as being yours. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 04:59, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I thought that was clear and I meant to answer affirmatively. That’s why it seemed strange that my edits came as a surprise, since I suggested them many days in advance of making them. @Psiĥedelisto @Pyrrho the Skipper Copernicus43728 (talk) 15:40, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

@Copernicus43728: Do you work for, (or are you,) Jason Miller? Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 20:14, 15 April 2022 (UTC)