Talk:Twitter

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Internet culture To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles
Expand : Pick an article from here or here
Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images
Stubs : All stubs are located here
Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}}
- See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention

Too many links

Does anyone else think theres a bit too many links ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenkinsp (talk • contribs) 16:25, June 4, 2007 (UTC)

I've added {{nomorelinks}}, I'll try to go through them later but look at WP:EL for the policy -- pb30<talk> 16:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned up all of the links that don't directly relate to Twitter, its creator, or its partners. White 720 02:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just added two links before looking here. Maybe there should be a different header titled 'Third Party Services' or something similar. Twitter has an API and stimulates external services so I do think it is justified to link to these on this page.

In References section - link №10 is bad. Lesha 15:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really?

"It made its debut at South by Southwest Interactive in March 2005.[1]" -- In March 2007 it just turned one year old.

Yeah. This above statement citing March 2005 as the debut date is false. Twitter was launched in the summer of 2006.

Prod notice

I removed the prod notice, added a reference and added some stubs. Capitalistroadster 06:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it passes WP:WEB yet as that requires it to have "been the subject of multiple and non-trivial published works" --J2thawiki 11:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look: http://news.google.com/news?q=twitter&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&sa=N&tab=wn Though there's tons of blog references there, there are still several newspaper articles (San Francisco Chronicle, Arizona Republic, The Guardian) about the site's growing popularity and importance. Jeff Greco 04:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

International Numer

Im not sure how global it is, but I get Twitter updates on my Australian Mobile, and it comes from the US number Conufsed 04:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a UK number that I think is recommended for use in Australia phocks 04:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Twitter.gif

Image:Twitter.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Updates via email?

Considering removing where it says you can update via email as Twitter does not support this natively as far as I know. There is another separate service at twittermail.com that you can sign up for and email tweets, but it is a separate service and so probably shouldn't be considered as part of this article. phocks (talk) 04:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prominent users?

According to the entry "Prominent Twitter users include US presidential candidates John Edwards and Barack Obama[10] and author and journalist Anna David.[11]". While Edwards and Obama are clearly prominent public figures, I'd never heard of Anna David before (I'm not from the US) and when I checked her Twitter profile she is only followed by 16 people. Does she deserve to be mentioned here? Bobbiejohnson (talk) 11:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I'm removing her. Josephgrossberg (talk) 13:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now, let's be honest here. Edwards and Obama? Or maybe some unpaid campaign intern, more likely. The whole "Prominent Users" section is just more of what makes this "article" less of an article and more of an "advertisment". Good show, Twitter folks, you snowed Wikipedia. Proxy User (talk) 16:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited this section down considerably, and attempted to remove some of the more advert-like language. After comparing this article with articles on various other user-generated-content sites (LiveJournal, Flickr, MySpace), I see no reason why the Twitter article needs a list of EVERY vaguely notable individual who has ever used Twitter, so I pruned it down to large organizations (I left the presidential campaigns in for now, as this is now phrased in a way that associates the Twitter use with that campaign rather than implying that Obama and Edwards are personally posting), and removed some repetitive language. Also renamed the section to "Enterprise uses", as it is at this point more about usage of Twitter by large-scale enterprises as opposed to being a list of users. evildeathmath 18:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ecosystem

I think, now that Twitter is getting an ecosystem, we should add SOMETHING about components such as Twhirl.Martin Packer (talk) 21:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I added a basic section on ecosystem. Feel free to edit / wikify. Martin Packer (talk) 14:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this

why have i not heard of it before now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.238.83.27 (talk) 23:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vert

Love the advert. That's what this article is, right? Right. I'm not saying that there should not be an article about Twitter in Wikipedia, but HONESTLY! This is the most obvious "viral" blog pap! Good grief! Proxy User (talk) 16:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C.N.N.

C.N.N. doesn't run it's feed, a separate individual setup a script that checks the site and then posts it. He considered selling it on eBay and then decided not to so he removed the auction. Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page | Contribs)} 09:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Number of Users?

Does anyone know of a reputable source for the number of twitterers? If so, that should probably be incorporated into the article. --Mmpartee (talk) 16:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TwitDir keeps track of the number of users with a public profile. It looks about the most reliable. What do you think? http://twitdir.com/ (Currently 2 million +) Phinicky (talk) 09:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Social justice implications

I'm skeptical of the claim about "research published in New Scientist" - it's not a research journal, it's a news magazine with a focus on science. Perhaps "research mentioned in New Scientist" would be more accurate. Autarch (talk) 13:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

imo, this whole section is trivia. the UC Berkely student could just as easily have sent a regular email, text message, or voice message with his cell phone. if there are "social justice implications" they relate to cell phones, not twitter. and regarding the New Scientist article, does it even mention twitter by name or just communication tools that twitter is "like"? the whole section could be droppped. 204.128.230.1 (talk) 02:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not trivia at all. Twitter being used a primary mode of communicating extremely important events, rather than the (relatively) trivial things people usually use microblogging for is huge deal. It makes a statement about A: how popular Twitter has become and B: it's possibilities for the future. But I have no problem saying "mentioned" rather than "published". It is more accurate, since scientific news magazines report about research published elsewhere (i.e. in journals), and don't in fact publish new research themselves. Steven Walling (talk) ^{formerly VanTucky} 02:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After reading about the case where the UC Berkely student send a tweet, it seems obvious to me that the important thing was that there was a campaign group supporting those who'd been arrested. As was pointed out above, a text message to the supporters would have done just as much. This section reads a bit too POV to me, as it's using an event to somehow "prove" that Twitter has something unique that text messaging alone doesn't. Autarch (talk) 14:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Autarch--this doesn't demonstrate anything about Twitter in particular having 'social justice implications' (as any number of other communication technologies could be, and have been, used similarly to what the UC-Berkeley student did), and the popularity of the service is already well established in the rest of the article. The second paragraph is about use of Twitter as a communication method in emergency situations, not for 'social justice' and could probably be merged with the earlier mention of the California wildfires. My feeling is that this section is about as relevant as including a summary of every emergency call ever made with a mobile phone in that article. evildeathmath 15:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we change it to a broader headline (maybe Twitter in emergency situations or Twitter as a news wire) and add info from this and this source on Twitter being used in the CA earthquake. Sound like a good solution? Steven Walling (talk) 18:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It still doesn't demonstrate anything unique to Twitter--these are all things that have been done with text messaging, IM, and posting on a website via a web-enabled cell phone. I guess my concern is that we could probably find a dozen instances of any mode of mobile text communication being used in any emergency situation--it's not particularly relevant unless it's providing something that wasn't there prior to Twitter, which I don't see in any of the sources. evildeathmath 19:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One possibility is renaming the section "Twitter in the Media", keeping the first paragraph and trimming the second, which isn't relevant to the current heading anyway.Autarch (talk) 14:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the Fail Whale? :(

The powers that be deleted the Fail Whale entry and it was supposed to be combined with this entry. But it was substantial and they haven't been combined. BRING BACK THE FAIL WHALE! He deserves his own entry. 67.83.159.168 (talk) 20:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. All the article needed was some clean up. Since it was deleted through the speedy deletion process, it is perfectly acceptable to create a new fail whale article (one which doesn't include the same content previously article). It's in the works... Steven Walling (talk) 21:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For those interested, we'll draft it at: User:Steven Walling/Fail Whale Steven Walling (talk) 21:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that the content of Fail Whale was merged into this article's edit History. From there, editors can integrate it to the current article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where was the merge discussion? It was supposed to happen here. Seeing as it was only merged on the 18th, the discussion should still be present. I don't see any Fail Whale section either, which is where the link points. Steven Walling (talk) 21:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 July 16 here. The closing admin Wafulz states that he merged the content after the article was deleted. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously he didn't merge it, since it's not here. Also the Fail Whale is notable, since it's been focus of several mainstream news articles. Unmerge! 131.107.65.118 (talk) 00:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I merged it because at the deletion review there were three people who wanted the entry deleted/redirected and three others who thought it should go to articles for deletion despite being pretty sure it would be deleted there. I merged the content that GregManninLB wrote because it was based on reliable third-party sources. If you want you can expand the content here, but keep in mind that the topic should be given appropriate weight.-Wafulz (talk) 02:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Fail Whale deserves its own article, because it's become a larger meme that reaches outside the Twitter site. There are accompanying blogs, art, products and coverage etc. etc. Steven Walling (talk) 18:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TV characters on Twitter

Certain fictional TV characters have twitter accounts, to update fans about their doings between shows or series. I think this could go into the article, but the only source I can find is a blog: [1]. On a similar note, Sockington is a (real) cat who seemingly updates there. Totnesmartin (talk) 10:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, yeah, unless we can find a reliable source, I don't see putting it into the article. It's not really that important to the article, IMO, as it's no different from the studio running a blog with the character. It's not unique to Twitter. Though I do think it's cool that there are Twitters for things like the Phoenix lander. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a Phoenix Lander twitter? (follows) Totnesmartin (talk) 17:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Enterprise Uses"

I do not really like the title "Enterprise Uses" isn't really right. Only the first bullet has anything to do with a corporation the rest are Churches, Universities, Candidates, and NASA.

I think it should have a title like Known Uses are Prominent Uses. Or something along those lines. I just don't think using the word "Enterprise" is really the right word when 90% of the uses pointed out are not enterprise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aceofspades1217 (talk • contribs) 07:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bots adding O-live

I went over to the Danish(?) Wikipedia article to see what the story was, and apparently that article has external links to Twitter on many other Wikis.

Should those external links on the external Wiki page be removed, since the two service are nothing the same? TheChrisD ^{Rants•Edits} 07:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate name

On their website, it doesn't say Obvious, LLC; it says Twitter, Inc.