Jump to content

Talk:Twitter under Elon Musk

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Yes, again. You read that right. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:52, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support its more better known as X Ned1a Wanna talk? 18:04, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remove infobox from this article

[edit]

The "X" infobox does not make sense being here, as the article for X is at Twitter. It is a duplicate infobox which can only confuse readers. 77.132.40.108 (talk) 18:13, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cambalachero Here is why I think so. What do you think 77.132.40.108 (talk) 18:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, that infobox was entirely inappropriate for this article. Thank you for removing it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. Cambalachero (talk) 18:33, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[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. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, this was added when this article was briefly moved to X (social network) as part of a split of Twitter before this was overturned by move review. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?

[edit]

Merge this article with Twitter Ned1a Wanna talk? 18:08, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nedia020415 Why? Maybe with Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk, if anything. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:33, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. That seems better to merge. Ned1a Wanna talk? 00:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article has major neutrality problems

[edit]

While looking for material for the Criticism of Twitter, 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 WP:DUE); 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...). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:31, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 WP:BALANCE 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 :) CNC (talk) 19:46, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, Criticism of Twitter strikes me as a textbook example of a POV fork. Dylnuge (TalkEdits) 20:14, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, breaking off Criticism of Twitter was a mistake. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on WP:ARTICLESIZE of Twitter (ie WP:TOOBIG), then I can understand how the split was legitimate rather than a WP:POVFORK. 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 WP:PROPERSPLIT due to lack of summarising and attribution. CNC (talk) 21:35, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 (Wikipedia:ATTACKPAGE) I'd rather AFD this or just redirect this to the Critcism... which is perfectly in line with similar articles (Criticism of Facebook and like). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In which case the topic is Twitter, not Musk, and summarizing much content here which is not at Criticism of Twitter 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? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:22, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to the talk page history this page was split off from Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk[1][2][3] not Twitter or History of Twitter. It also wasn't split for length, it was split for context (at some point acquisition became post-acquisition) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You think this page 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? Dylnuge (TalkEdits) 03:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 WP:BLPN could be a less nuclear option, perhaps. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just trying to understand what you think is so bad. Can you provide examples? Dylnuge (TalkEdits) 18:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Second. QRep2020 (talk) 05:32, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]