Talk:WhatsApp

Recent addition

The addition we are debating about is:

“ Facing a pushback about Facebook data sharing and lack of clarity (possibly not unrelated to the 40 million downloads in a few days of the alternative secure messaging app Signal) WhatsApp postponed the implementation of the privacy policy update scheduled from February 8 2021 to May 15 2021. ”

Grin the original cited sources says nothing about 40 million downloads. 'Possibly not unrelated' sounds like speculation. There is no MOS-compliant reason for your use of italics. If there is a reliable secondary source to support this, please cite it, and consider whether it would be better to use in-line attribution. Thanks GirthSummit _(blether) 11:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

40 million downloads in 2 days

The original cited sources show exactly what the statement was stated, but maybe you are not familiar with GPlay or the Wayback Machine, so I apologise for my assumptions. I have created a screenshot and marked the information; this have been also mentioned in numerous (secondary) sources, which you can easily read by entering "signal 40 million" in google search (like RT, Android Police, Tech Crunch (paywall/adblockblock), mentions in Reuters and I am sure more can be found with some efforts). I would appreciate if you would revert your revert first, then you may pick any source you deem appropriate from this list. Thank you for your efforts in advance! --grin ✎ 11:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: sorry, forgot to ping you. --grin ✎ 11:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Grin, to support the statement you added, you would need a reliable secondary source directly linking the postponement of the policy update to those 40 million downloads. The currently-used CNBC source mentions a surge in downloads for rival services, but it says nothing to imply that is the reason for the delay to the policy roll-out. You need a source that makes the link if you want to add anything like that to the article. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: I am not sure I understand what you ask for. You mean that you expect the company to make a press release about pulling back their policy change since they have realised that they may have lost 40 million users within days? There never will be such a release from any companies. (What else could be the reason for pulling back, anyway, apart from keeping their userbase, which is their only asset? I wonder what you might suggest here.) Nor can anyone realistically expect 40 million users making statements about why they have downloaded the rival messenger platforms, nor can anyone prove connection it, apart from the unmistakable correlation between facebook policy change, the backlash in possibly all social and other media and the 40+ million new downloads the same week (and also probably same magnitude for Telegram, but I do not have the numbers nor am I interested). I kindly contest your judgement here since in my opinion the strict coincidence of these events unmistakeably show (but obviosuly cannot prove) the connection. I would prefer you to revert your change unless other editors agree with your opinion. Thank you! --grin ✎ 12:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Grin, what you are indulging in here is original research. We don't need a press release (which would be a primary source anyway), we need a reliable secondary source making the connection. If there is a reliable secondary source that speculates that the 40 million downloads was a contributory factor to the decision, then we could add something to the article with inline attribution (eg John Smith, writing in Foo Weekly, suggested that the large number of downloads was likely a contributory factor in the decision to...). What we cannot do is indulge in such speculatation ourselves, in Wikipedia's voice. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Let me quote verbatim:

WhatsApp's new terms of service have resulted in an exodus of users moving to alternative, "more secure" messaging services. While there a bunch to choose from, Telegram and Signal seem to be the most popular of all. Shortly after the former added 25 million users in 72 hours, the latter has crossed the 50-million mark on the Google Play Store.
— Android Police

[…] [not able] gaining 40 million new users in a week without problems. Someone even noted that, on average, Signal has gained 3,900 users per minute since January 7. […] That was when it emerged that Facebook’s WhatsApp messenger service was putting in place new “privacy” rules that basically forced everyone to share their personal data […]
— Russia Today

Isn't this specifically the source you are describing? If not, could you specify what would, in your opinion, describe it better than these? --grin ✎ 14:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Grin, OK, first things first - Russia today has been formally deprecated as an unreliable source - don't use it. See WP:RSP for links to the RfCs. I have no view on the reliability or otherwise of Android Police.

However, what is more important is that neither of these make any statement that would support the assertion that the decision to delay the policy was due to the surge in popularity of these apps. They seem to imply that the surges were due to the change in policy, but neither of them say anything about whether that surge in popularity led to the WhatsApp decision to delay. You can't read between the lines, you can't use common sense or draw inferences - you summarise what the source says. They don't say it, we don't say it. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 14:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Don't you have a weird feeling that whenever you ask something it takes approximately 5 seconds to find a response? :-/

WhatsApp clarifies it’s not giving all your data to Facebook after surge in Signal and Telegram users
— The Verge

WhatsApp fights back as users flee to Signal and Telegram
— Financial Times

WhatsApp delays privacy policy changes after users defect to rivals Signal and Telegram
— Fortune

So, would you consider The Verge, FT or Fortune as a reliable source, and would you consider the quotes fitting what you have described? I have given you sources telling policy change as the reason for the outflow of users, I have given you sources telling that policy callback was caused by the outflow of the users, I really wonder what else do you expect to justify a sentence which contained that it is possible that the events are related. Also I would like to share the feeling that you do not want to see that sentence - and the mention of Signal / Telegram - in the WhatsApp article, for some yet unknown reason, that's why you ask rock hard proof for a mildly phrased [and obvious for the causal reader] sentence. (Sidenote: while I don't usually quote RT I must comment that it's not wise to reject it blindly: while its policial articles are usually fake I can't say the same for common topic articles.) --grin ✎ 16:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Grin, your WP:ASPERSIONS about my motivations are inappropriate for an article talk page - if you want to comment on my motives, you should do so on my user talk page, or at a noticeboard like WP:COIN or WP:AN.

You added a vaguely worded (and non-MOS compliant) parenthetical clause to a sentence that already existed about the pushback and postponement - to be frank, as an uninterested observer (this page only came to my attention because of people posting spam links), your addition looked more like in-article commentary rather than an encyclopaedic contribution. I have no qualms about the FT or The Verge as sources (no view on Fortune), so if you want to add something that has an appropriate tone, and which is directly supported by assertions in the body of those articles (not their WP:HEADLINEs), I have no concerns about the article mentioning Signal and/or Telegram.

(Sidenote: I have not said that it is wise to reject RT blindly, I don't know their content well enough to have a personal view on the matter, but a recent consensus was established for it to be WP:DEPRECATEd - that's the position that we're in.) GirthSummit _(blether) 16:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: I only mentioned your motivations since I cannot really explain why you so assertively insist your unflexible rules on this specific topic where it feels inappropriately harsh. You are fighting against everything I reply and you come up more and more restrictive stipulations by every reply. I gladly hear that you have no general objction the addition we discuss about, so there is a hope that at some point we can reach the state which is acceptable to you, too.

Anyway. Please link what MOS compliance is since I am not familar with the term. Again I disagree with your opinion that the addition would be irrelevant, since it is probably the biggest motivation (as the quantitative measurement of user disapproval; among other already mentioned or listed factors) behind the callback, and definitely carry information relevant to the article and the topic. However I cannot comply with your request as to use "a tone you find appropriate" and phrase it that "you accept that it is directly supported by the asertions in the body of the articles" (and notice emphasis on the parts you, again, additionally came up with, seemingly ignoring the linked guideline which is clearly about headlines unrelated to the article body and not headlines summarizing the content), partly since English is not my mother tongue, so I would appreciate if you'd either phrased it appropriately and with the wished direct connections, and either you or myself could then insert this perfectly source-reflected (and visibly obvious and possibly pretty hard to debate) fact into the article.

Thank you for your time. --grin ✎ 17:59, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

OK Grin, one thing at a time, in random order.

MOS-compliant means compliant with the WP:MOS - we don't use italics for emphasis on the way that you did. (MOS:ITALIC, to be specific). The construction 'possibly not unconnected' is also unhelpfully speculative, to the point of sounding like irony - not the tone called for by the MOS.

I understand why you mentioned my motivations - I'm not particularly bothered about it, I was just letting you know that it was inappropriate. So long as you understand that, all is well.

I mentioned WP:HEADLINE because the quotes you put further up were just that. Headlines are not considered reliable sources of information, unless they themselves are clearly supported by the content of the articles they're attached to - hence why I said that that anything added to the page should be supported by the body of the source. This isn't my rule, these are general editing guidelines that apply to all of us.

'Probably one of the biggest motivations' sounds like speculation again, which we don't do. When I look at those sources, I don't see them making a direct connection between the number of downloads and the decision, as you did. I agree with you that there very likely to be a connection, but we cannot join those dots. If you wanted to add a factual clause simply saying that competitors saw increased downloads, and attach some numbers to it, I'd be unconcerned. Don't explicitly link the decision to the numbers themselves unless the sources do.

Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 18:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I realise that you asked me to proposed an appropriate wording. This could probably do with some word-smithing, but I wouldn't be worried if the whole sentence were to be replaced with something along the lines of Concerns about its privacy policy update led to a backlash, with competitors such as Signal and Telegram gaining tens of millions of new users. WhatsApp responded by posting a revised FAQ on its website, and postponing the implementation of the privacy policy update scheduled from February 8 2021 to May 15 2021. I based that on the The Verve source, which gives a figure of 25 million for Telegram, and states that that is less than Signal without giving a figure; if one of the other sources gives a figure for both then I'd be unconcerned about giving numbers for both. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 19:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Moving Lawsuit to 'Reception and Criticism'?

It sticks out in the history section, especially having its own subsection, perhaps it would make sense to shift it down to R&C, where all the other security issues are addressed? ASpacemanFalls (talk) 12:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC)