Talk:History of Twitter

Notability

@Masem: looks notable to me... You disagree? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:27, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

@Masem: please use the talk page. You keep interrupting my edits and I intend to edit this topic, not Twitter. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:54, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I am using Talk:Twitter where the ongoing discussion of how to handle the content of Twitter and Twitter under Elon Musk should happen, which involves the content of the History section of the Twitter article. You should not split out until that discussion has concluded to determine how the main Twitter articles will be written. BRD may be optional, but this is specifically disruptive to split while an ongoing discussion is active.

Also, the History section of Twitter already has too much bloat, co-mingling corporate aspects with features with controversy (on both sides of the possible split). It needs to be trimmed down and content moved in the main articles, which may result in a much smaller History section that doesn't make sense to split out. (GNG does not require a standalone article to be made even if a topic may be notable). Masem (t) 17:00, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

It does not require it to be made, but this one has been made... We do require consensus to delete, merge, or redirect once an article has been created. It also features content you will not find at Twitter. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:02, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

We also require consensus to avoid disruption, which this article is. And the only reason it features "unique content" is that you just added it after moving it out. Just add that unique content to the History section at Twitter, and if consensus determines a separate split is appropriate, then we can move it out. Masem (t) 17:04, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I could have created this article without using a single sentence from Twitter... I still can. Is that what you would like me to do? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

No, because you know (by participation) that that discussion of how to handle the three main articles on Twitter should be resolved. Creating this is introducing a complexity that has been discussed but not yet agreed upon with consensus, its an equivalent disruptive problem as doing a WP:POVFORK (even if this has no POV).

Additionally, I am looking at the "unique content" you've been adding and that's just making this History even more a mess by just adding things in a WP:PROSELINE-type approach. Its mixing up history of the service itself with corporate matters (anything related to Musk) that needs a more narrative approach and requires significant refinement, which really depends how consensus decides how Twitter should be discussed. A better experience for the reader may emerge from how we end up determining the split of content between multiple articles, Masem (t) 17:10, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I spent 40 minutes on a more in-depth rewrite. But somebody redirected the page so all that work went *poof.* It appears that your issue is with the content and not with the pages notability, is that so? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:13, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I have two issues, one is the poor organization of the content of the History section from Twitter as well as the additions you are making (which, btw, didn't "poof", since that was just a normal non-admin revert and survived in the history). That's something that needs a large-scale fix but that should be done first on the main Twitter page since some of that content looks like it should move to different sections first.

The other issue is the larger concern that the ongoing discussion at the Twitter page is unclear how consensus wants to organize the information that is currently split between Twitter, Twitter under Elon Musk and Timeline of Twitter. Perhaps consensus will come to conclude that a History of Twitter article is appropriate, but until consensus figures out the larger picture, creation of this is purposely disrupting the discussion there. Masem (t) 17:17, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

You misunderstand, there was an edit conflict between the in-depth rewrite and your reversion... And unlike a normal edit conflict you can't retrieve your work it just says the sections no longer exist. If you want to open a discussion about how to "organize the information that is currently split between Twitter, Twitter under Elon Musk and Timeline of Twitter" you can but such a discussion is not currently open. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:19, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

There is a discussion going on, that's what's happening at Talk:Twitter, and why you shouldn't be jumping the gun here by creating a separate article and making that situation even more complex. Masem (t) 00:51, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

The only mention of Timeline of Twitter on that page is by you, it doesn't appear that any other editor even mentioned it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

wtf are you playing at, this is not the way to do things CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 17:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

facepalm this is literally what happened at Community Notes, you didn't seem to have a problem with it there. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:12, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

facepalm, I didn't split the article... CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 18:28, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Nice edit, because obviously I didn't split the article. No I didn't have a problem with it, neither did anyone else, as it was a relatively non-controversial or contentious split to occur. What you've done is quite obviously the opposite, but you fail to recognise this. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 18:29, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

The topic is notable, that doesn't actually appear to be contentious... Unless I'm missing something here. There is no reason the page name can't change if people prefer a name with dates in it, this doesn't get in the way of that discussion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:37, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

The creation of the Community Notes article also was a problem because there was an active discussion about it on the talk page. And there were objections to splitting it off, even if it was notable.

You are putting far too much weight on the idea that once notable a topic must have its own article. That's not how notability works, its only a first test for a possible standalone. Other factors like overall comprehensiveness of an article as determined by consensus comes into play. If there was a SIZE problem, there are other steps that could have been done first like trimming excessive content (which exists throughout the Twitter article, it gets far into much into trivia aspects) and then splitting may make sense. Masem (t) 00:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

CommunityNotesContributor seems to disagree that it was also a problem, you two should discuss that. I am putting exactly zero weight on that idea because I do not hold it. What I am saying is that the article now exists... And it is notable. If you don't think this article shouldn't exist open a deletion or merge discussion. If you think what I did is ANI worthy and I am likely to do so again take it there. Until then I will continue to improve wikipedia, especially as no rule or guideline stands in my way. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

"History of X" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect History of X 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/2023 November 27 § History of X until a consensus is reached. NotAGenious (talk) 19:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Redirect

@CommunityNotesContributor: How do you square the redirect with WP:REDIRECT specifically "If editors cannot agree, the content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used, such as restoring the article and nominating the article for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion." Clearly editors can not agree... So what is with the refusal to use AFD? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:16, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

If @InfiniteNexus: and @Masem: could also answer that question I would appreciate it... Why ignore what WP:REDIRECT says to do? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh so now you want to talk. Not how this works... Can you please just revert the article again already?

You've still got at least 1 revert in this 24 hours period to use up... CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 05:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Might want to check the conversation two above this one, it was you who stopped responding not the other way around. If thats not how this works why is that what WP:REDIRECT says? Is WP:REDIRECT wrong? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

There's no reason to remove the redirect "History of Twitter" --> "Twitter#History", so AFD makes no sense. And talk page discussions were open. We have looked at other methods of dispute resolution, and you're standing your ground without any other support for your position at this point. Masem (t) 13:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

That the topic History of Twitter is a notable topic is a reason to remove the redirect, you may not like or agree with the reason but its gaslighting to say that one doesn't exist. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

You are WP:WIKILAWYERING. WP:REDIRECT refers to pages that were converted from an article to a redirect. You converted a redirect to an article, and your edit was reverted. WP:BRD clearly applies (yes, it is an essay, blah blah blah), and the WP:STATUSQUO should remain. You repeatedly reverting others is disruptive and edit-warring, and also against consensus. It is funny that you claim "editors cannot agree", when it is in fact not the case — everyone but you agrees that your actions were not appropriate.

To reiterate: there is an ongoing, active discussion at Talk:Twitter that directly concerns this page. Even if the consensus that emerges has nothing to do with this page, you cannot get ahead of that discussion. Basically, you executed a version of Option C when there has been little support (and even opposition) for the creation of a History of Twitter article. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

A revert of the conversion of a redirect to an article is a conversion of an article to a redirect. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

A revert of a revert of the conversion of a redirect to an article is edit-warring. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

That may be true, depends on context. But a revert of the conversion of a redirect to an article is a conversion of an article to a redirect no matter how many reverts have happened. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Even if your interpretation of WP:REDIRECT were accurate, enforcing a guideline is not a valid exemption of WP:EW. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

No but WP:IAR is... There is a significant improvement to wikipedia which is now no more. What is the problem with restoring it and taking it to AFD if you really think that consensus will be with you? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

You're really gonna pull the IAR card at me? It's not a free pass for everything. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe I've ever pulled it before... Also note that WP:ATD-R is policy and says "If the change is disputed via a reversion, an attempt should be made to reach a consensus before blank-and-redirecting again. Suitable venues for doing so include the article's talk page and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion." So what is the excuse for repeatedly blanking and redirecting? IAR? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

No, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:EW. Consensus is clearly against you, and you are the one repeatedly re-reverting from the WP:STATUSQUO. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

The STATUSQUO in this context is the edit which was reverted. Hence why STATUSQUO talks about tagging the content while the discussion is ongoing instead of removing it. Specifically this edit by GSK is the status quo[1]. Note that statusquo is an essay though, for another example of applicable policy and guideline see Wikipedia:Page blanking "This page in a nutshell: If you want a page to be deleted, don't blank the page, instead request deletion." "Under normal circumstances, Wikipedia articles should not be blanked. If you think an article has no useful content, then either fix it, or else leave it in its present state and propose it for deletion. However, it is acceptable to blank an article for libel or privacy reasons as an emergency measure, as described in the policy on biographies of living persons. It is also sometimes necessary to blank an article which is a copyright violation in its entirety – for instructions, see Copyright problems." Consensus isn't a vote or a democracy, its determined by arguments based in policy and guideline. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Huh? The status quo is always the last stable revision before a dispute arose, i.e. Special:PermaLink/1180061662. Multiple editors have told you that the ongoing discussion makes a premature split inappropriate, and that you shouldn't edit-war, and your only response has been "but this guideline and that essay and this guideline!" I think it's about time you drop this now, this is becoming an WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT situation. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

This wasn't a split, it was an entirely new article that isn't a split of any single page. "But you edit warred" is not a get out of jail free card when this doesn't fall under either of the two exceptions outlined at Wikipedia:Page blanking. "But you edit warred" is not one of the legitimate reasons given for blanking a page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Right, totally wasn't a split from the main article of course. See comment below. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 22:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

No matter what you think "But some of it was a split from another page" is also not a valid reason to blank. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Right, of course. You are always so correct about these things. Thanks for enlightening me. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 22:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

How do you get around "This page in a nutshell: If you want a page to be deleted, don't blank the page, instead request deletion." ? Also yes when it comes to disputes about guideline and policy I have an almost perfect batting record, I am almost never wrong. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Please, share more of your wisdom with me. I'm desperate to learn all of it. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 22:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I hope you are being sarcastic, CommunityNotesContributor. Never have I seen as vain a statement as I have an almost perfect batting record, I am almost never wrong. And the irony, of course. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

How dare you! CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 22:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Always happy to be proven wrong, but nobody has yet made a policy or guideline based argument for blanking the page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

You've always been 100% correct in my eyes, especially when it comes to consensus. You're basically an expert. Ideally you'd be contributing to WP:CON. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 23:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Please keep it civil, I'm not mocking or disrespecting anyone. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Totally. I'm agreeing with you. You're always 100% right. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 23:14, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No one blanked the page, Horse Eye, it was reverted back to a redirect. Please stop wikilawyering. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back Please tell him he's wrong. I know you will. Please tell him. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 22:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

"Page blanking means editing a page and removing its content to leave it completely blank, or without any substantial content." WP:Page blanking Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I knew you could do it :) CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 23:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We are going aeround in circles. You are refusing to get the point, which is that the premature split was not appropriate and you should not have edit-warred. Picking on the "correct" definition of each PAG is wikilawyering and unproductive. This entire thread is disruptive, and I will entertain this no further. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

The problem with your point is that it's too relevant. You need to make a point that's less relevant. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 23:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Its not a circle, we just positively established that this was page blanking which you didn't know before. Even if we assume that as true "premature split" is not among the given grounds for page blanking in any policy or guideline. If I'm wrong please show me. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

You're definitely right. I'm certain of that. As you said, you're almost never wrong. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 23:06, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Mentioning no names here - in order to avoid WP:PA that I'm already guilty of - but I've had more productive conversations by banging my head against a brick wall. Repeatedly. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 18:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Additional sources

More sources relevant to the topic at hand [2][3][4][5]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:17, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Keel in mind that WP is meant to summarize sources, not document each one. Just because you can find lots of sources doesn't mean an extensive expansion is required. Masem (t) 19:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Tell that to WWII... When we're at the point where we have individual pages for Twitter's corporate battles you can start talking about our coverage being too extensive. These are also all sources which we do not currently summarize, either in extant coverage or in the edit history versions. I'm not repeating what I already added.Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

There are hundreds of books that detail every battle and front of WWII, so the large number of articles we have it fairly represents the level of coverage. These subtopics of Twitter don't yet have that volume of coverage that necessitates separate articles. That's not to say that it might make sense to split out something, but I think that the issue of how the content across all articles related to Twitter should be reviewed first before jumping on creating even more articles. Arguably the topics below would likely better fit under a "Criticism of Twitter" at first blush, but that would need more consideration. Masem (t) 20:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Aren't we discouraged from making dedicated criticism pages and sections? WP:CRITSECTION and whatnot, no? Nobody is jumping to creation either, I've only said that one day it might merit a stand alone page. For now this can go on the page here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, "Criticism" articles and sections are discouraged since then tend to draw every random negative thing. However they are not forbidden as long as they are constructed with care to watch the POV. And Twitter (pre Musk) has seen a fair number of controversies its been in where the controversy has been explored from several angles that would give a neutral approach. However I cannot immediately say this is the best idea right now, I'd want to see some discussion on how we are organizing the full Twitter/X content across multiple articles first. Masem (t) 23:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree, I think there's also a difference between covering notable scandals that occurred on twitter (especially if they don't involve Twitter but Twitter is just the venue) and covering the evolution of politicians on twitter (from none to ubiquitous with world leaders tweeting daily). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Political history of Twitter

Additional sources for the political history of Twitter which is only lightly covered currently [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

History of terrorism and political violence on Twitter

Additional sources for the history of terrorism and political violence on Twitter[28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

History of COVID and Twitter

There's a lot of coverage of COVID and Twitter (especially in the academic literature), probably enough for a full article at some point[42][43]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I am pretty sure there is an article on covid misinformation that includes Twitter issues. Masem (t) 19:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

COVID-19 misinformation Masem (t) 19:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

This would be beyond just the misinformation issue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Not everything needs a standalone page. WP:NOPAGE. Anything you find can easily be merged into COVID-19 misinformation, as Masem noted. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

What about the content that is not about misinformation? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Such as? InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

For example the sections of the two above articles that are not about misinformation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Twitter usage. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Thats an excellent idea, thank you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

There's even a section for use in health and medicine which a covid subsection works well into. Masem (t) 23:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree, I wasn't actually aware that Twitter usage existed (and from the viewership nobody else does!). That might also be a good place for a section about politicians and terrorists on twitter. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)