Talk:Twitter/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Twitter name

I read the FAQ. Looked at the RMs. Couple thoughts:

• Most prior discussions have low attendance, less than a dozen editors. I don't see discussions of long length involving the wider community.
• The argument of discoverability is the same argument that Twitter is/was the better brand name. Hardly anyone will disagree with that, forever. It was an epic brand rename failure. Thus, we on Wikipedia will always argue that Twitter is more "discoverable", because it's fundamentally true on and off Wikipedia. Nevertheless, maintaining Twitter forever, for discoverability reason, is POV, essentially concurring with - and consciously indicating - it was a brand rename failure.
• X.com redirects to twitter.com .. this is an extremely strong case for keeping Twitter for now. If/when the company changes to X.com, the case for Twitter gets weaker.
• Wikipedia can follow the lead of many other sources using "X (formerly Twitter)" etc.. as an intermediary step, a deprecation step. This is already done piecemeal throughout Wikipedia.

-- GreenC 14:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with concerns over small headcounts in the previous RMs. An RfC should probably be done in the future, with options like "X (social network)", "X (website)", "X (formerly Twitter)", and "Twitter" as titles. SWinxy (talk) 19:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I would keep the current article name, because it’s the historical and common name. But if you had to change it, I would change it as “X (formerly Twitter). TheMasterMind321 (talk) 20:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Unless we can agree on “X (formerly Twitter)” being the WP:COMMONNAME I doubt that we could change it to that. I can’t think of instances where we had to attach the former name to the title, and you’re unlikely to get consensus on changing it to something like “X (social network)”. The fact that the URL is still twitter.com and consensus being that “Twitter” is the COMMONNAME lends credence to maintaining the current title. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 03:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

(formerly XXX) would be an unconventional form of disambiguation. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Also this would set precedent for other titles like ye (formerly Kanye West). Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 11:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

FWIW twitter.com redirects to x.com now AbsoluteWisp (talk) 04:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

The website is now x.com, so the name has to change. 2A02:B127:11:2238:2BB4:A1DF:2585:19DA (talk) 13:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

The website is now x.com and the company has virtually no official publically seen relation to the name Twitter. However it is true that many people still refer it as Twitter. So, it seems to me that the best name, as suggested above, is either "X (formerly Twitter)" or "X (social network)". I think it should be the first for a couple of years until the public associate X and Twitter, and then the latter while still allowing "formerly Twitter" in the lede. Mstf221 (talk) 11:38, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikidata

Since this article is no longer relevant to social network X, it should be moved from the current wikidata item to this https://wikidata.org/wiki/Q126022120 wikidata item. Kerim Demirkaynak (talk) 18:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

NY times still calling it Twitter

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/26/nyregion/twitter-lawyers-threadnought-elon-musk.html

pretty clear what the common name is. 2600:1700:AB0:4210:2CEE:3297:5111:4B6E (talk) 19:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

They also call it X https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/24/technology/elon-musk-x-biden.html GamerKlim9716 (talk) 10:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Masem’s proposal

Ok, the previous proposal (which I supported), failed. I’m not sure if masem will write this but if they does, this discussion will be closed. Their proposal was that, Twitter before Elon Musk & X under Elon Musk should be split into 2 articles. (I think someone is already working on Twitter before Elon Musk, which would be named Twitter.) So Twitter before Elon Musk would be called, “Twitter, Twitter (2006-2022.)” & X under Elon Musk would be called, “X (social network), X (social media).” So we probably won’t split it (since the last proposal of renaming it failed.) But I think it has a higher chance than renaming the article. So we will see. Misterunknown24 (talk) 20:04, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Twitter under Elon Musk is decidedly not Twitter even before the finalization of the X name change. Whatever happens going forward, Twitter should remain Twitter as a history of the service up to Musk's purchase of it. I believe moving Twitter to Twitter (2006-2022) would be a pointless disambig and would probably violate WP:TITLE. GSK (talk • edits) 22:19, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

No, that's not it at all.

1. Twitter stays where is at; the article would be rewritten to put it in the past tense and clearly described as the service before Musk's intent to rework it as X.
2. Twitter under Elon Musk is moved to X (social media). This page should start with Musk's expressed intent to acquire Twitter and the subsequent transfer.
3. Content at Twitter that deals with anything after Musk's acquisition - save for a few paragraphs to provide the aspects of transfer - should then be moved to X (social media). Similarly, some of the content on the X page may need to be moved back to Twitter.
4. History of Twitter should be ultimately deleted/redirected, but after shifting through the material to make sure that the above two pages capture all the key points (There are some unnecessary details on that page) and moving as necessary
5. Timeline of Twitter, I don't know what to do. I think that that's bordering on the detail that WP:NOT#CHANGELOG cautions against, though there are key points one could either attribute to the business(es) or the service that could be kept. I think that a cautionary starting point would be to keep that article at that place, while a new Timeline of X (social media) (I think that would be the appropriate name, but I may be wrong) can be started for the X part.

It is far more complicated than a page move request or even a simple split. Masem (t) 22:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

ok what I was saying was that Twitter would be that & Another article would be renamed X (social network) Misterunknown24 (talk) 22:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

We'll need to revert some of the terminology changes in this article, as well. Now that the article is exclusively about Twitter before rebranding, it doesn't really make sense to still use "post" over "tweet", etc. – Primium (talk) 03:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

History of Twitter is certainly notable as a stand alone topic, we even have feature length books... and its too long to be reproduced on other pages, thats why its Stan alone. What would be the policy or guideline based reasons for deleting or redirecting? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 12:49, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

If we did the appropriate renaming and content moving of Twitter and X, the contents related to Twitter and X separately within History of Twitter would have no problem being inserted into the updated articles without size issues, and would achieve better comprehension of the history aspects of Twitter and X (individually) in context of description of the service. While I don't question that the topic of "history of Twitter" is notable on its own and would qualify for its own page, one should consider if context and comprehension are better if the content is kept the content with Twitter/X, per WP:NOPAGE Masem (t) 12:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

That seems unlikely... History of Twitter is not a fully developed article, the only thing due is expansion. We're most likely going to be splitting it due to size at some point in the next few years. Context and comprehension are fine, but they aren't policy and guideline... WP:N, WP:DUE, and WP:NPOV all are. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 12:57, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Most of History of Twitter is duplicating content already on Twitter and Twitter under Elon Musk. In fact, the bulk of the History of Twitter page is a copy-paste of the history of Twitter from the Twitter page, plus a few additional paragraphs. Its clearly unnecessary right now. --Masem (t) 13:00, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

You're not arguing that its unnecessary right now... You're arguing that its necessary right now but won't be in the future (and if you're not then strike "ultimately" and "after"). The bulk of the History of Twitter page hasn't yet been written, thats the whole point. I would also note that as notability goes even 1% unique content is enough for something to be stand alone, you're bashing the article but not in ways that are relevant just in ways that are personally insulting. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

In what is presently in the History of Twitter that is pre-2023, there is a lot of fluff and unnecessary detail, maybe up to 25% of that content could be trimmed down. However, those details can't change anymore, no new history items related to Twitter (not X) will come around for the most part. And given that Twitter has the bulk of that exact same content due to the copy-paste creation, we can already evaluate the size issue, and there's clearly no immediate size problems with that history in place on the Twitter article.

Now, the history of X/Twitter under Musk will grow, I agree with that, but with X on it own page, there would be plenty of room for that to expand. (Twitter under Elon Musk does have also a large level of fluff that can be trimmed down too) Maybe at some point years from now X would have a much more detailed history that would require it to be separated, but by that point, I doubt the "X (formally Twitter)" issues around naming would still be around, so if that's necessary then, breaking "History of X" could be done. But that's crystal-balling. It is clear that with what we can write about X on its own page for that.

And this is keeping in mind that Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk absolutely should be kept, which would significantly reduce the need to reiterate the details of acquisition on either the Twitter or X page. Masem (t) 13:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

"no new history items related to Twitter (not X) will come around for the most part." But more will be written about the history of Twitter. Thats actually how most historical pages work on wikipedia, its current and expanding coverage of something which doesn't exist anymore. History of X was broken out, technically Twitter under Elon Musk is a child page of History of Twitter and serves that function. I don't see the logic of keeping a page about a specific part of the history intact but devolving the larger page about the history, I agree it should be kept but even if I didn't I couldn't make a valid argument against its stand alone notability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Given that Twitter existed while Wikipedia was around, and has been worked on for all those years use then-current news sources, I cannot see how the history of Twitter (pre-2023) can be significantly expanded in the future. It clearly needs a trim as its filled with proseline, the first sign of editorial fluff, and there certainly could be items that were not documented originally that get identified as essential historical context, or improving the narrative based on books that are very much secondary for Twitter's history, so I can see some expansion - but more than a, say, a 25% increase on what's presently there even without removing fluff? That's very doubtful.

I think the fundamental question underlying all of this is whether there is valid justification that X is not the same as Twitter even if it is a continuation of the same service, such that Twitter and X should be treated as two separate topics. Once that question is answered by consensus, then we can get more into the nitty details about how to handle pages like History of Twitter. If there is consensus that Twitter and X are very different things, then the History page should clearly be split like that. If there is consensus about these being two different topics, though, matters. Masem (t) 13:38, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict while trying to add, avoiding threading issues) Further, if there is truly a size issue (even if Twitter/X were still on one page on their own, there's a lot of excessive detail that could be trimmed down), it likely would be better to keep the history with the main page on the topic and split out Criticism/Ligitation of Twitter as an article on its own, yes, even with the cautionary warnings around standalone criticism pages. But I think we can easily have Twitter, X and the related history and criticism of both within just these two pages after a fair dealing of reworking contenet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masem (talk • contribs) 13:00, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

We can also split out Criticism/Ligitation of Twitter as an article on its own, but in general we avoid stand alone criticism or controversy articles... And the remaining content would still be too long for one article. In terms of time vs coverage you normally don't get a ton of serious academic work until one-two decades out... So much of the high quality coverage doesn't exist yet. We shouldn't be expecting really solid work historical on for example the Musk acquisition until the 2030s. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. So much has changed under Musk: policies, people, its name, the userbase. But it's still a continuation of Twitter, so one article can be thought of as a part 1, and the other as a part 2. Timeline of Twitter should redirect to History of Twitter, though, since its the same idea (and NOTCHANGELOG). This article can become less unwieldy. SWinxy (talk) 17:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi, @Osunpokeh. My changes were based on the splitting of Twitter under Elon Musk from Twitter, hence this article now applies only to Twitter before its acquisition. You can see Masem's comment above for what I was working on. – Primium (talk) 17:05, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Bad idea. It's the same social network, not sure where the clean cut into two pages is coming from nor where the consensus was reached to make that change (hence why it was reverted) [osunpokeh/talk/contributions] 00:31, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Just to branch out a bit from the discussion of renaming/splitting this article, here's a list of potential pages that would either need to be renamed, duplicated, significantly rearranged, or merged if there was a split: Censorship of Twitter; December 2022 Twitter suspensions; History of Twitter; List of Twitter features; List of Twitter services and applications; List of mergers and acquisitions by Twitter; List of most-followed Twitter accounts; List of most-retweeted tweets; List of most-liked tweets; Timeline of Twitter; Use of Twitter by public figures; Twitter usage; Twitter verification. As well as Template:Twitter navbox which might be better kept together, with separate sections for Twitter and X, when logical (not to mention this template could use a very serious update). Evel Prior (talk) 22:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Popping in to say I support this change. This rebranding and owenership change is akin to a merger or spinoff IMO, which generally get distinct pages on Wikipedia. While legally the company is the same, it's clear that the media and public generally view it as changing entirely after Musk's purchase. It also seems like the cleanest way to end the constant debate over these pages and move on. glman (talk) 12:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

A long note on the ontology of Twitter and X:

The way I currently see Twitter/X, it's like the difference between Windows 8 and Windows 8.1. The two are very similar to the point that if you ask the average person to name any difference between the two, they probably won't be able to say more than the lack of the Start button. At the time the difference was huge, and vastly relevant, now it feels like a distant memory.

I think Twitter and X are the same as Win 8/8.1, while (with regards to WP:CRYSTALBALL) once Musk revamps the site even more then future X would be analogous to Windows 10, but the transition from Twitter to X can still be expressed as its own article. (On a personal note I'm also in favour of Twitter "not to be confused with X", but for obvious reasons this label should not exist on Wikipedia.) Whether or not this happens, whether or not the two are dis/similar, they seem to be two separate expressions of the same social media concept, just like Win 8.1 is a moderate update to the same operating system concept of Win 8.

On the question of similarity, there needs to be a test and a tipping point. That tipping point is in favour of splitting the articles, and very much opposes a rename. We went from articles describing changes made to Twitter by Musk, to articles describing a coup de grâce to Twitter, and ascribing new functions and changes to X.

As a library and information scientist (LIS), I'd say the ontologies of Twitter and X have drifted far enough apart to not consider them the same thing, they don't share similar problems, they don't seem to share the same social context (as X killed the global town square feeling that Twitter had). The changes to the API, options to mine data for research, changes to weather alerts, the changes in political discussions. On the other hand, the ontologies of the names seem to be complex where WP:UCRN comes in. Do people refer to the impact of X on society, public dialogue, mental health issues, democracy and such, or do they still consider it the impact of Twitter. This seems to be still in the X (formerly Twitter) phase, as well as sociology as a science. Another thing to mention from a LIS perspective: I have to put in Twitter to the search terms to even get relevant results compared to searching for "X social media".

As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, my recommendation is that Twitter as its own distinct ontology/phenomenon (or expression of the same social media concept as X), should always remain an article without redirects or confusing interlinks between it and X.

(I know Wikipedia's structure is not a mirror of Musk's opinion, but even he justifies it as a new platform: “This is not simply a company renaming itself, but doing the same thing.")

(I would also point to the difference between Vine and Huddles (originally V2, Byte, and later Clash). Though not sure at this point to which direction this would tip the scale.) Evel Prior (talk) 20:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I think it is dumb to split it just because of a name and ownership change. Regardless of the name, it is stil the same website.--2A01:5A8:30D:955E:4D8B:6716:A336:5ED8 (talk) 14:05, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

• Not yet / maybe / no... It is very tempting and easy to get caught up in the frenzy of news and argue about the day to day but you need to pan out from the wide view. Twitter had existed for 16 years before the major acquisition and for 17 years before rename and the new name has not supplanted the common name and is unlikely to supplant it any time soon. We might be able to think about a split but even there we are talking about a company with less than 2 years of history or 10% of the lifetime of the service. If there is ever more to say about the service that it should be split into its own article then this would be a grand proposal to start from. But not now. Jorahm (talk) 17:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Twitter under Elon Musk which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 19:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh ok, then that also goes along with my talk (which I just created.) So my talk can be closed if we are talking there. Misterunknown24 (talk) 20:06, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Result of the discussion was to move the "TUEM" page to X (social network), so we're gonna have to move several redirects of Twitter like the "X" related ones to the new one. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 01:38, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Good spot. For many of the 103 incoming redirects, the best target is obvious: Twitter (website) should continue to target Twitter but X (platform) should divert to X (social network). Others are debatable: is The website previously known as Twitter a reference to X or to previous versions of the website, which we cover in Twitter?

There is a wider issue that some of the 71,316 incoming links to Twitter should also be changed, but that hurdle may be insurmountable. Certes (talk) 12:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Granted, there's currently a move review evaluating whether the move was valid. But currently the review leans to endorse the move. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 15:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

What is this article about?

According to lead, is this article now about "name Twitter" or "social networking service"? If Twitter changed name to X why there are two articles if it's the same social networking service? Eurohunter (talk) 17:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I have written this opinion on why this article should have parenthetical disambiguation as Twitter (2006-2023) under the same precedence used to have two articles. The brackets can always be removed in the future after a more significant deviation from what Twitter as a platform has historically been instead of just changes to corporate structure. 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 19:38, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not going to submit another move request as the change was recent and it may be more ideal to wait and see how this article resynthesises and matures first. 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 19:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I think an RM for Twitter 2006–2023 would likely find support, now that TUEM as been moved to X (social network). But probably best to wait for the move review to finish before opening it. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 09:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

"Twitter 2006-2023" is absolutely unnecessary for an article title. We don't add unnecessary disambiguation parts to a title. The lede is meant to be there to describe what the article is about, the title to aid in searching for the topic. Masem (t) 12:05, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

It may be ideal to cite structural changes in the lede to prevent confusion. As an example, 80% of the workforce and the executive board being laid off may be a more notable change than who is CEO and increased media scrutiny. Consensus for the last X (social network) move request hinged on continuity issues, which wasn't addressed by the closer. Considering the likely overturning of the page move, Twitter (2006-2023) may be a good compromise for future move requests. 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 23:21, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

The move review is honestly leaning on overturn atm Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 23:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Twitter and X corp. ar 2 different entities. Twitter is the platform, and X corp. is the holding company of twitter. Pickleishere (talk) 02:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Personally I think that Twitter is now a past tense event. Apart from the rebranding, the service has become significantly different under Elon Musk.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Twitter and X Corp. and separate entities, I don't think anyone is arguing about this. The discussion is about Twitter and X (social network). CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 09:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Screenshot

Seems like File:Twitter Home Page (Moments version, countries without dedicated feed).png can be DRV'd. — 魔琴 (Zauber Violino) [ talk contribs ] 13:57, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

"X (social network)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect X (social network) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 19 § X (social network) until a consensus is reached. Web-julio (talk) 17:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested Move 20 June 2024

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.

---

Twitter → X (Social Media) – "Twitter" was the original name of this template, and we should revert to The new name:-"X (Social Media)".Maheep Singh24 (talk) 17:49, 20 June 2024 (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.

Reliability of post-acquisition user counts

I'm a bit concerned about uncritically reporting the number of active users based on claims from Musk; courtesy tagging @Mstf221 who updated this most recently. The source they added ([1]) clearly states the following, linking to a tweet from Musk:

Elon Musk claims X now has 600 million monthly active users, 300 million of whom use the platform daily. (He doesn’t indicate what portion of that user base consists of automated accounts or spam, though — and as X is no longer a publicly reported company, the numbers can’t be externally verified.)

It's clear that the 600 million count is a non-independent claim not verified by the source. However, user counts are typically kinda weird—the data is generally non-independent by its nature, and we cite non-independent sources on similar articles (e.g. Facebook currently cites user count to Meta's 2022Q1 investor report). This may be necessary to report user count for any site, though I'm a bit skeptical of it in all cases since user counts are self-serving claims. In this particular case, however, I think there are a few reasons to be more skeptical of the claim than usual (in order from most to least compelling):

1. A significant amount of independent reporting has called these numbers directly into question: e.g. NBC News, The Guardian, Mashable, Slate. These articles are generally sourcing third party analytics firms which estimate trends in web traffic and have shown a significant decline in usage of Twitter/X during the same period of time that these claims of growth have been made.
2. While both a quarterly investor report from a public company and a tweet from the owner of a private company are non-independent, the former is a more formal declaration and typically given more weight by secondary sources (e.g. see the above quote in full). Regardless of source, it's atypical for publications to include the degree of caveat included here; e.g. here's the same publication reporting user claims from Sam Altman about OpenAI, which notes that they come from Altman directly but lacks the extensive disclaimer used in the claim above: [2]
3. Musk in particular has a history of making false or misleading claims about corporations under his control via Twitter/X: [3].

Personally I would tilt towards completely removing this claim from the infobox (as we have no recent reliable independent numbers to go by) and placing a description of the claims and their disputed nature in prose. I've left the claim in place for now as I'm curious what other editors think. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 15:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the solution of removing this claim from the infobox ... and placing a description of the claims and their disputed nature in prose for all the above reasons.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 16:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Since X Corp. is a private company, Musk has the controlling share of it and CTO of X, it seems to me that what Musk says is kind of the same thing as what a company report would say (which does not exist). Since private companies (like X and Telegram) do not need to publish their MAU, what the owner claims is the best thing we could have and I really do not think Musk is lying to us in this case because there are over a thousand people working at X and some employee might uncover his lie at any moment. I don't think he would want to lie about such a topic which can be shown to be a lie by objective measures. ("Taking Tesla private, funding is secured" thing cannot be shown to be a lie objectively as he could claim "I thought 'these guys' would support me taking Tesla private and it turns out I was wrong. I didn't lie, I was mistaken.")

MAU is an important info and I think it should stay on the infobox. Mstf221 (talk) 13:23, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

If the best source we can get is primary, non-independent, and has been actively called into question by independent reporting in reliable sources, I don't think we should be stating the claim as undisputed fact (which infoboxes implicitly do). Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 15:59, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

In the past Wikipedia community had no problems with Twitter's company reports on its user numbers, which is not much different than what is done now (instead of the company, its owner is reporting). It wasn't that user numbers added to the infobox after Musk's takeover of the company; but somehow it has become a topic of discussion after his takeover. As I said before, it is hard to believe for me that Musk, the richest person on Earth, tells us a lie so blatant. It is because, among other reasons, he could be exposed by some employees (many of whom are not fans of Musk) at any moment.

Companies know the exact number of users they have. The only problem is whether they would lie and as I explained due to the objectivity of numbers, in this case this does not seem to be the case.

Spotify, Netflix etc. publishes their user numbers and people have no problem but when it comes to X...

I think the problem some people have is their dislike for Musk because the number of userbase is increasing and this can be easily seen on Wikipedia, they could not push their "Twitter is dying" lie. (No offense intended.) Mstf221 (talk) 18:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you're getting your last sentence from. I said above that I don't love the practice of undisputed reporting of claimed user counts—they are often massaged in self-serving ways (e.g. Meta shifting to a new "family active users" metric recently)—but the concerns here are because these claims have been directly called into question by a variety of independent reliable sources and not because of some weird vendetta against Musk (unless it's being coordinated across a variety of highly reliable news sources). Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 18:58, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

When the official numbers' accuracy is widely questioned by sources Wikipedia considers highly reliable, we really have to reflect that. Infoboxes are supposed to be 100% verifiable facts. — Red XIV ^(talk) 12:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

It seems we have rough consensus forming that we shouldn't be stating this as undisputed fact, so I've gone ahead and moved the user count claims to the article body with attribution to Musk. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 17:57, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Look who is agreeing with you... I will not push any further but Musk was right, Wokipedia seems to be a better suited name for this leftist dictatorship who apply the rules only when it suits for their purpose. Mstf221 (talk) 11:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

100% certainty is unattainable (you would have known this if you had read some epistemology or philosophy of science). The question is not whether we are 100% certain about the information but whether the uncertainty of the information is tolerable. Mstf221 (talk) 12:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

When the reliable sources say that the reported user numbers are dubious, the article must reflect that. That's how Wikipedia has always worked. — Red XIV ^(talk) 17:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Citations in the third paragraph are broken

In the third paragraph, all citations just appear as plaintext ("[4]") instead of as a clickable citation. These citations are useless because they cannot be clicked or give any information. Wiichicken (talk) 19:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)