Talk:MeWe

Advert

The article is very promotional and mostly WP:ABOUTSELF using primary and some press release sources, so has been tagged as such. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 07:57, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

"due to its encryption, MeWe has had an influx..."

2603:8081:160a:be2a:3d0c:974d:9821:7363: Can you please specify where the New York Times source you're citing verifies that Trump supporters and members of the far-right have been migrating to MeWe "due to its encryption"? I'm not seeing it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:19, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I should’ve phrased it better. I meant that like Gab, WeMe has had an influx of far right supporters due to its policies regarding “free speech.”2603:8081:160A:BE2A:3D0C:974D:9821:7363 (talk) 20:21, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

That was my concern -- it's not in the source. I'll rephrase it a bit. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:22, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Use of scare quotes places NPOV in question.

"The platform's choice not to moderate misinformation on the platform, which it classes as 'opinion', has attracted conservatives who felt mainstream social networks were 'censoring' their posts and those who have been kicked off of those platforms" I get that we're trying to send a clear message about this site but can we not be so flagrant about it? 212.70.101.116 (talk) 15:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

They were meant to be just quotes, not scare quotes, but I see how they can read that way. I've adjusted the sentence to remove them. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:35, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I won't belabor the point after this but they certainly weren't quoting from the listed sources. If they were intended to be actual quotations they should be cited. 212.70.101.116 (talk) 17:11, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

It's supported. The "censor" quote was from a source earlier in the para—I've moved it to the end of the sentence where it ought to have been. The "opinion" quote is from the Mashable source cited inline. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:18, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

User base

I’ve a concern with the following quote, “MeWe's loose moderation has made it popular among conspiracy theorists, including proponents of the far-right QAnon conspiracy theory, which was banned from Facebook in 2020, and the "Stop the Steal" conspiracy theory relating to the 2020 United States presidential election.[2][10][11]”. None of the 3 sources cited support the statement that MeWe is popular with proponents of the QAnon fantasy. 2 supports the anti-Vaxer statement and 2&10 the Stop the Steal but 11 doesn’t even mention MeWe in the article. Lepew57 (talk) 00:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I've added an additional cite from later in the sentence that supports the QAnon piece. QAnon content is also mentioned in citation 2. Citation 11 is simply to verify that QAnon was banned from Facebook. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:25, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

It would be helpful if the page was periodically updated by someone in the company to say how many members there were at those times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodney Topor (talk • contribs) 05:54, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Rodney Topor: We generally discourage people from editing articles with which they have a conflict of interest, though if someone from the company wishes to suggest changes on this talk page they could certainly do so. But we require all information to be verifiable in reliable sources, and so even an employee of the company would need to provide sourcing to verify any user numbers. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2020

Hi I would remove mention of conspiracy theorists and anti-vaxers because this is clearly very biased. You shouldn't have to read this in the general description so as to devalue or de-legitimize the platform, we should leave that up to the individual. Please remove the mention of politics as it's inappropriate and not necessarily even true. it should read like this: "MeWe's light approach to content moderation has made it popular among those who value freedom of speech regardless of content" 142.119.23.133 (talk) 23:04, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Wikipedia articles reflect what is written in reliable, independent sources. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:55, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: I second this request, the current desciption is not reflecting the purpose of MeWe, neither its main distinctions from others. The popularity might be added to the end of the paper, however they are irrelevant and are hearsay, not confirmed by any reliable investigation. The current contents goes against the basic standards of Wikipedia that state: "Wikipedia regards the concept of a neutral point of view as one of its non-negotiable principles". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aldep77 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Controversial requests must first get consensus through discussion. Aldep77, you should sign talk page comments by ending them with the wikicode ~~~~. — Bilorv (talk) 16:38, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@Bilorv: What is controversial? Please explain. So far, I don't see any factual discussion, according to the rules, the consensus needs to be found Thanks aldep77

@Aldep77: An explanation is available at Wikipedia:Edit requests#General considerations, point 2. Bilorv is simply pointing out that the edit request template should not be used when attempting to begin a discussion; only once consensus has been reached if the editor cannot implement the change themselves due to the page protection.

As for your comments, the descriptors are supported by reliable sources inline. If you have reliable sources of your own that contradict these, feel free to supply them. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:24, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Aldep77's edits

@Aldep77: edits like this [1] are highly inappropriate, violating the consensus from this talk page as well as wikipedia policies such as the prohibition on trying to turn a page into WP:PROMOtional ad copy. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@IHateAccounts: What do you mean by inappropriate? Is anything there not true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aldep77 (talk • contribs) 12:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

IHA has specified exactly what they mean: "violating the consensus from this talk page as well as wikipedia policies such as the prohibition on trying to turn a page into WP:PROMOtional ad copy". GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: That's not true, because (i) there is no promotion here - just pure facts the network is ad-free and this is it main distinction point. (ii) The current contents is clearly biased and thus violates Wiki policies. (iii) I don't see any consensus here. On the other hand, I see at least two complaints on the current contents. I repeat my question. What is not true in the changes? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aldep77 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Please see WP:FALSEBALANCE. We report what reliable sources say on the topic in due proportion to their weight and numerousness. This is why some articles may appear to be glowing support and others focusing only on negatives. It doesn't matter what a website says about itself (as this will always be glowingly positive), but what outside sources say. That something is a fact is not by itself a reason to include it. That something is sourced is not a reason by itself to include only that content in the first paragraph of the article. — Bilorv (talk) 16:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@Bilorv: Please read the proposed changes, they are not by itself nor from the mewe website they are from the outside sources. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aldep77 (talk • contribs)

@Aldep77: Ok, let's review.

1. Your edit was a copyright violation, directly pulling those lines from the "source" you provided without attribution.
2. "Lifewire", as a part of the "Dotdash" network, is a questionable source per WP:RSP with some major issues.
3. WP:ABOUTSELF claims, such as MeWe's claim to never perform data mining or to have high privacy, have to be taken carefully. WP:MANDY issues abound for alt-tech platforms, especially as regards promotional language that they put out in press releases (that may be repeated credulously by low-quality sources without fact checking or proper notation).
4. The material is, in any event, contradicted by actual WP:RS and definitely not WP:DUE for insertion into the lead paragraph.
5. What you added, even if you hand't committed a copyright violation, very much violates WP:PROMO policy.

I think that about covers it... IHateAccounts (talk) 18:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

is is really an alt tech?

If it is, then also telegram and maybe even signal are alt tech.

I think we should be more careful before labeling companies as connected to far-right and alt-right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.226.169.229 (talk) 16:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Telegram and Signal are alt-tech, see Alt-tech#Platforms. Note that "alt-tech" does not necessarily mean that the platforms intentionally court this kind of userbase; Deen Freelon and colleagues, publishing in Science, wrote that some alt-tech websites are specifically dedicated to serving right-wing communities, naming 4chan , 8chan , Gab, BitChute and Parler as examples. They noted that others were more ideologically neutral, such as Discord and Telegram. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

so if that the case then go and mention it in their articles. For me the all issue looks like nonsense. I can understand why Parler is considered alt tech. But it looks like that any platform regardless of the aim of its creator can be considered alt tech. We all know that MeWe was not created a platform for alt-right and far-right but as a private alternative for Facebook. I think the labeling of alt tech is unfair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.226.169.229 (talk) 16:38, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Moreover, MeWe is also popular among democratic activists in Hong Kong, are they belong to the alt-right? We should be more careful in the labeling of alt-right and alt tech. Otherwise, it will mean nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.226.169.229 (talk) 16:55, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't actively edit those articles so I haven't added it to them, but feel free if you think it ought to be mentioned there. As I have said already, alt-tech is not synonymous with alt-right, and the labeling of a platform as alt-tech does not mean all (or even most) of its users are alt/far-right. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

But there are two problems. First, it misleads people to think that this is a website mostly by the far-right and that this is a website of the far right. Second, we have the problem of inconsistency, no one mentions in the first paragraph of signal that it is an alt tech. The same goes for discord and telegram. The website belongs to the same grey area. We can mention it in the body of the article. But it will be wrong to define this social network as an alt tech in the first sentence. It doesn't matter that the definition doesn't say what people may think that it says. It matters that most people will wrongly understand from this article that this is a website that is used mainly by the alt-right and far right. I think that if we have a case of the grey area we should drop the label of alt tech as this may mislead people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.226.169.229 (talk) 17:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I have no objection to it being removed from the lead if that would satisfy you. I also don't have any objection with it being added to Signal/Discord/Telegram. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

yes, that will satisfy me, because it won't mislead people about the website. We can mention that it is used by the far-right and everything in the body. but we should also mention in the body that it is used by democratic activists like in the case of hong kong.141.226.169.229 (talk) 18:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I've removed the mention from the lead. As for we should also mention in the body that it is used by democratic activists like in the case of hong kong, we do mention its usage in Hong Kong in the article body, at MeWe#Hong Kong. Is there something missing that you think ought to be added? Please provide a reliable source if so. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

We shouldn't be arbitrarily making decisions about what platforms are alt-tech and which aren't. MeWe is referred to as alt-tech in reliable sources, so it should stay.

https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/01/24/1016669/alt-tech-investment-venture-capital-capitol-attack/

https://uk.pcmag.com/social-media/131050/how-mainstream-social-media-data-collection-compares-with-alt-tech-rivals

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/parler-shutdown-future

TuffStuffMcG (talk) 18:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree. But I've just removed the word from the lead; it's still mentioned twice in the body. I don't think it's so widely described as alt-tech that it needs to be mentioned in the lead, though it's also not such a rare descriptor that it definitely ought to be omitted. I'm pretty ambivalent about whether it goes in the lead, so long as it's mentioned and sourced somewhere in the article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Just because a website has right wing users it doesn't make it an alt-right website. This part at the beginning should be removed because nowhere is it stated by the company, parent company or ceo that it's specifically "alt-right" 82.69.16.115 (talk) 00:10, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2021

MeWe challenges the status quo by making privacy the foundation of online social experiences. MeWe is uncompromising about trust, respect and integrity. Where you own your personal information & content. It is explicitly not ours. Where you never receive targeted third-party advertisements or targeted third-party content. Where you have full control over your newsfeed and the order of how posts appear. MeWe does not manipulate, filter, or change the order of your newsfeeds. Permissions & privacy are your rights. You control them. You control who can access your content. MeWe is an American social media and social networking service owned by Sgrouples, a company based in Culver City, California. MeWe's light approach to content moderation has made it extremely popular for those who value their rights and freedoms. Irem Embers (talk) 02:35, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:49, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2021

Remove claim MeWe is popular to extremist groups only? Sounds like zuckerberg works at wiki now! 2601:187:8081:3E40:28D6:305C:720B:A419 (talk) 17:53, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: The article makes no such claim that MeWe is only popular among extremist groups. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:55, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

No, it just focusses on extremist groups because the article cites primarily from partisan, Left-leaning sources like Vice, Mashable, and Rollingstone. Hardly the picture of neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:F35C:6401:C2F:6B90:28CF:6C1B (talk) 12:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Please feel free to suggest any reliable sources you've seen that you think ought to be incorporated. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:24, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

The use of the word "moderation"

"Moderation" should be replaced with "censorship" in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.188.150.119 (talk) 19:53, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Reliable sources are referring to content moderation, not censorship, when describing MeWe. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:59, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

lol, "reliable sources" being the extraordinarily Left-biased Rollingstone and Vice. And then moderated by someone whose "editing interests include political extremism (particularly online) and groups in the manosphere." Its amazing how partisan and biased this system is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:F35C:6401:C2F:6B90:28CF:6C1B (talk) 12:46, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Please see WP:BIASEDSOURCE. As for the suggestion that I am "moderating" this page, I have not acted in an administrative capacity with this page. I have edited this page (as have 124 others). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:24, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2021

1. The "Sgrouples" company name should not be bolded in the opening sentence of the lede. It calls undue attention to a term which, if searched within Wikipedia, provides no further insight, and if searched outside provides little further insight as well (bringing up essentially, only MeWe content). The name should be mentioned, but not so-highlighted. Having it appear thus is a red herring, and only distracts, suggesting there is something of wider importance, with more about it to be found. (At least at present, there simply is not.)

2. The single sentence of the second paragraph of the lede, beginning with "The site's interface has been described..." should logically precede the two sentences that appear before it—the design of the site and the practices of the company (with regard to interface design and content moderation practices) are more fundamental than the information on the user groups with which the site is popular. The admirable uses (in Hong Kong) and self-serving misuses (by QAnon) are both a consequence of design decisions, and so stating these should come first.

3. I also think, since this restructuring is called for, that the "Hong Kong" and "conservative" content should be reviewed for order of appearance, with chronological being most defensible, and then for wordiness. With regard to the latter, MeWe is is only in the most limited sense defined by how it is misused, and making descriptions of the conservative issue less wordy in the lede is probably a better reflection of the service, the founder's intent, and its actual global use. Media attention and the size of a brouhaha that appears at a given moment is not always indicative of a subject's importance (cf. the attention paid to moves made by royals, cosmetic surgeries of actresses, etc.). Encyclopedic means beaing able to step back and assess scope and long term importance in the context of a thicket of very often repetitive media product.

2601:246:C700:558:B1DB:6500:4813:ACF0 (talk) 17:34, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Regarding #1, the term is bolded because it is a term that redirects to this article (Wikipedia manual of style). Regarding #2, I disagree with the suggestion for the lead; the current second sentence speaks directly to the notability of the website and, for Wikipedia purposes, is more important than interface design. Regarding #3, your suggestions are too vague and the changes you want are unclear. You are welcome to open discussions on these issues and any other changes you think appropriate to get consensus. Schazjmd (talk) 20:23, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2022

As of 12th April 2021, Mark Weinstein is no longer the CEO of the company, he has been replaced with Jeffrey Edell (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Scott_Edell) Source: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/mewe-appoints-jeffrey-edell-ceo-165000504.html IRusho (talk) 16:31, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 01:32, 21 February 2022 (UTC)