Talk:Twitter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Twitter has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.


Revisions suggested 12/10/13[edit]

Please copy record tweet information from “Growth” section to the “Record Tweets” section. The heading “Record Tweets” only has two record tweets under it, and would be improved by adding more record tweets from the “Growth” section.

The first paragraph of the “Issues and Controversies” section should be altered. Most of the paragraph leads the reader to assume that Twitter has played a large role in the Arab Spring. Then the last sentence discredits that line of thought by stating only a small fraction of the population of Arab Spring countries are active on Twitter. Please revise to state a debate exists as to the size of the role Twitter has had in these revolutions. Twitter revolutions should possibly have its own heading, where this debate can be summarized.

The following text should be included to introduce the Arab Spring section of the first paragraph of “Issues and Controversies”. In 2009, the Western world projected Twitter onto the green revolution in Iran. Twitter did play a role in the uprising, but not to the extent the Western media said it did. An extreme minority of Iranians used Twitter at that point in time. Twitter did help publicize the events of the green revolution in an otherwise secretive and closed country, but Twitter did not drive the masses into the streets of Tehran. source: http://www.publicaffairsbooks.com/morozovch1.pdf

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2017[edit]

change 2001:4998:EFFD:7804:0:0:0:1035 (talk) 00:38, 18 April 2017 (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. — IVORK Discuss 01:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Error[edit]

Twitter#Initial_public_offering_(IPO)

In November 2016, Twitter's stock dwindled causing potential acquirers to pass on a deal.[107]

This is not what the source says - it says " Not only has Twitter’s stock (TWTR) slumped, potential deep-pocketed acquirers also passed on a deal apparently because the network too often a cesspool of abuse. " , which is clarified in the article linked from that text ie Twitter trolls were part of the reason why Salesforce walked away from a deal] (finance.yahoo.com)

83.100.174.82 (talk)

Hi there! Thanks for pointing out that error! The ending of that section is a little odd (for example, why is an acquisition important in a section about IPO?), so tomorrow I will fix it by adding info on all of the potential bidders backing away from the deal, which is what the paragraph alludes to but doesn't state correctly. LocalNet (talk) 20:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Fixed! :) LocalNet (talk) 06:05, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Twitter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:48, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

"Twitter explains on their website not to modify the logo"[edit]

I'd like to "explain" to you to fix this poorly-worded sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:588:4200:1C59:ED9F:1A43:418E:E1D9 (talk) 16:21, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2017[edit]

Please change "Twitter is ranked as one of the ten-most-visited websites worldwide by Alexa's web traffic analysis." to "Twitter is ranked eleventh most visited websites worldwide by Alexa's web traffic analysis." Source: http://www.alexa.com/topsites

Please change "A February 2009 Compete.com blog entry ranked Twitter as the third most used social network based on their count of 6 million unique monthly visitors and 55 million monthly visits." to "An April 2017 statista.com blog entry ranked Twitter as the tenth most used social network based on their count of 319 million monthly visitors." Source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/272014/global-social-networks-ranked-by-number-of-users/

Please remove "In March 2009, a Nielsen.com blog ranked Twitter as the fastest-growing website in the Member Communities category for February 2009." as Twitter is not the fastest-growing website.

Please change "Twitter had annual growth of 1.382 percent, increasing from 475,000 unique visitors in February 2008 to 7 million in February 2009. In 2009, Twitter had a monthly user retention rate of forty percent." to "Twitter's annual growth rate decreased from 7.8% in 2015 to 3.4% in 2017 and is projected to fall to 2% annually in 2020." Source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/303723/twitters-annual-growth-rate-worldwide/ PiyushKhatri (talk) 10:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC)  Done Music1201 talk 17:44, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

IPA[edit]

I would tend to say it "twit-ter" rather than "twi-ter" as implied in the IPA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.80.13.210 (talk) 21:42, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think that the IPA is necessary as "twitter" is a common English word. IPA is needed only if the pronunciation may be confusing to some people. Over at Wikitionary they have given ˈtwɪtə as the received pronunciation, but there is always some spread in how a word could be pronounced.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 03:59, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2017[edit]

Reference: Twitter revamps its dashboard in the hope of attracting new users and reengaging existing subscribers. Source: RPRNmag newsmagazine for the entrepreneur[1] NFarkas (talk) 19:07, 19 June 2017 (UTC) NFarkas (talk) 19:07, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:38, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

References

This sentence is wrong! "The service rapidly gained worldwide popularity."[edit]

Twitter used to be a crappy idea till 2009. Here's the article about this fact: http://hellohenrik.com/2009/12/twitter-used-to-be-a-crappy-idea-3-lesson-learned/ 21:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Emergency Use section needs reinforcement[edit]

OKcitynet (talk) 14:23, 9 July 2017 (UTC) There are important developments in the area of Twitter's use or potential use to organize and understand public responses during natural disasters. The present section "Emergency Use" (9.3.2) is quite spare and needs reinforcement and updating, particularly regarding types of emergency management situations where Twitter has played or could play a role. After the sentence, "In addition, Twitter has acted as a sensor for automatic response to natural disasters such as bush fires." (ref 386, 387), new text is recommended: "It has also been used or proposed as a tool to determine how emergency messages from local authorities are interpreted and understood by residents living in areas vulnerable to catastrophic events such as tornadoes and coastal flooding."

Suggested references:

Junghoon Chae, Dennis Thom, Yun Jang, SungYe Kim, Thomas Ertl, David Ebert (2013). “Public Behavior Response Analysis in Disaster Events Utilizing Visual Analytics of Microblog Data”. Computers and Graphics. 38 (2):51–60. doi.org/10.1016/j.cag.2013.10.008.

Matthew Auer, Yuman Zhang, Priscilla Lee (2014). “The Potential of Microblogs for the Study of Public Perceptions of Climate Change”. WIREs Climate Change. 5 (3): 291–296. doi: 10.1002/wcc.273. OKcitynet (talk) 14:23, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

mandatory phone numbers[edit]

This article should mention this somewhere. I can't find any info and it is important.

My first account I made years ago I did not provide a phone number. It still works.

I tried to create a new one today and it wouldn't let me unless I provided a phone number for them.

There doesn't appear to be any way around it. This is a MAJOR change worth covering in the article.

Iwould like help in finding sources which reported on this. I would like to know what year this change was made. It deserves its own section. ScratchMarshall (talk) 19:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

In March 2015, Twitter changed its rules to force users of Tor (anonymity network) to provide a phone number when signing up for a new account.[1] This was done because of ongoing problems with trolls.[2] It looks as though Twitter now requires a phone number for all new signups, regardless of whether the IP address is on Tor or not. This has led to various people asking online how they can sign up for Twitter without phone verification. The sourcing here does not say that all new signups require a phone number, although many people have reported that they can't sign up for Twitter nowadays unless they provide one. This needs clearer sourcing.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:39, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Twitter's sign up guidelines do not say that a phone number is mandatory, and allow an email address for verification. I've just created this new Twitter account and was not asked for phone verification. On the basis of this new account, mandatory phone verification is a myth, but many people are asked for phone verification. The use of Tor, VPNs or mobile IP addresses may require phone verification, but I created this account from my home IP address without Tor or a VPN. So if I do anything naughty with the new account, the police can come knocking at the door:)--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC)