Talk:WT Social

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the WT Social article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Infobox[edit]

Does anyone know how to fix the infobox, sorryHAL 333 23:26, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done here, one of the templates inside of it wasn't properly closed. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 06:00, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Searching for WT:Social[edit]

People are searching for WT:Social, which redirects to Wikipedia talk:Social. Is there any way around this? Greenman (talk) 18:59, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I made Wikipedia talk:Social into a redirect, which sort of works. If you search WT:Social, you get here, but it doesn't show as a bolded suggestion. It may not be a good solution. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:05, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Asked at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#I_wonder_if_he_did_that_on_purpose. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:09, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

American social networking websites[edit]

When I removed Category:American social networking websites my edit summary said this was unsourced and that it was actually registered in the UK. It needs a source, so should still be removed, but I may be mistaken about where it's registered. It's WikiTribune that is registered in the UK. I'm unsure about WikiTribune Social. Greenman (talk) 09:02, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with WikiTribune?[edit]

HAL333, Gråbergs Gråa Sång - One of the sources cited in the article, https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2019/11/16/wikipedia-jimmy-wales-facebook-social-network-competition/ , says that WT:Social is a "reboot" of WikiTribune. Similarly, https://www.livemint.com/news/india/wt-social-wikipedia-co-founder-launching-facebook-twitter-rival-11573997728402.html says "[WT:Social] started as Wikitribune -- a site that published original news stories with the community fact-checking and sub-editing articles. The venture never gained much traction, so Wales is moving it to the new platform with a more social networking focus."

If WT:Social is a reboot/new platform for WikiTribune, shouldn't this article and that article be merged? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:21, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no strong opinion, but it's not unreasonable. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:28, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They are two separate things. Sure, WT:Social began with the end of WikiTribune, but that doesn't mean they are the same thing. One is a social site and the other a news site. Look at the precedent. There are two different articles for the United Fruit Company and Chiquita Brands International. There are two different articles for the Houston Oilers and the Tennessee Titans. There are two different articles for the Weimar Republic and Nazi Germany. They are two separate things with different goals. They should not be merged HAL 333 22:14, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've cited two articles that link WT:Social to WikiTribune - one calling WT:Social a "reboot" and the other saying that WT:Social "started as WikiTribune". If we're not going to combine the two articles, there should be at least a brief mention of WikiTribune in this article, yes? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:46, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:57, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is WT:Social a con?[edit]

It asks for money upfront, it has no legal address listed or terms and conditions? Msablic (talk) 10:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Like any article talkpage, this page is not for discussing the topic as such. If you have WP:RS that states this, it may have a place in the article (I haven't seen any so far). You could try Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities or User talk:Jimbo Wales. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On closer inspection, they provide an email to wikitribune.com email and wikitribune.com site has terms and conditions and a registered address. Msablic (talk) 16:54, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Name change to "WT.Social"?[edit]

Hi, google search now shows the title "WT.Social", rather than "WT:Social". Their page top logo also now reads "WT.Social", and their new call for help (eg to recruit admin and other volunteers) uses that title. Regards, Esowteric+Talk 10:45, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We should wait for reliable sources to change to the new name before moving this page again. Iffy★Chat -- 11:08, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Let's change, and update the logo. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:04, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"WT.Social" and not "WT Social" seems to be the official name now, so I support the change proposal. - Indefensible (talk) 09:43, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Number of users[edit]

Mossbo, what is the source for the number of users inserted here:[1]? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:38, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When logged in and looking at your own profile page you can see the number of members on the right side of the page. If someone else could log in and see if they see 405,598 as I see, we could confirm this I think. Either that, or we can wait for a press release with a member count in it. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mossbo (talk • contribs) 16:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see 406,100.Johnragla (talk) 19:07, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. The question then is, should we bother to include a number found only at their website per WP:DUE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update 9 April. It seems this question was unresolved as of 4 December. As of early April, the intro finishes It is growing quickly. By January 2020 it had more than 450,000 users. This assertion is unsourced, although a false impression of sourcing is given by a wrongly-placed footnote number. Now I notice (when logged in to WT Social) that the number of users stated there is around 445,000. This is important because it shows that the number of users, having grown very rapidly up to December/January, has fallen since then. I attempted to add this information without sourcing it, but somebody reverted my edit. It seems we need to make a decision either to remove the unsourced information about user numbers (the two sentences I just quoted), or else allow updates to the figures (possibly with 'citation needed' tags) while they can be verified or disputed by anyone with a WT Social account. At the very least we should change the tense of "It is growing quickly" and the bad footnote placing, shouldn't we? Mrmedley (talk) 11:34, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrmedley: I fixed the footnote placing and requested a reliable source. GoingBatty (talk) 05:18, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GoingBatty: Thanks. I have done a little more to update the trend in user numbers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrmedley (talk • contribs) 05:39, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of minor conflicts[edit]

I obviously have a COI so take my suggestions and comments accordingly.

Wikipedia writes: "Unlike its predecessor (WikiTribune), WT.Social was not crowdfunded in order to "keep a tight rein on the costs."" The source it sites is more accurate: "Wales didn’t go down the crowdfunding route this time and says he wants to “keep a tight rein on the costs.”" Note that someone here has added "in order to" when there is no connection between the two really. (It's always good to keep a tight rein on costs, whether funded out of pocket, crowdfunded, investor funds, grant funded, whatever.)

Second, my co-founder Orit Kopel isn't mentioned either here or at WikiTribune (see talk there for another discussion) but there should be plenty of reliable sources to warrant her inclusion in the article.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:43, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo Wales--Not the most elegant, but addressed the immediate issues you noted, although still need to add a ref. Do you happen to have an opinion on the Merge w/ WikiTribune proposal above? - Indefensible (talk) 09:55, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"WT:Social is a spin-off from Wikitribune, the “collaborative media” site that Mr Wales started alongside co-founder Orit Kopel two years ago." - https://www.ft.com/content/9956ff9c-0622-11ea-a984-fbbacad9e7dd I presume that the FT source will be sufficient to resolve the 'citation needed' on Orit's role as co-founder.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:51, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The wording of the FT article makes it sound as if Orit Kopel was co-founder of WikiTribune, but not so clear re WT Social. I have added that point to the WikiTribune article. Mrmedley (talk) 01:44, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With Respect to the General Notability Guidelines[edit]

In a vacuum, wt.social does not seem to have accomplished anything noteworthy. It has not received much coverage since its creation - most of the first page results from searching its name on google are articles from late 2019 to early 2020, when it was new. Looking past its creator and its association with Wikipedia, has it done anything to pass WP:GNG on its own? 2600:1700:BA30:49E0:4C19:557B:25C3:5B4C (talk) 02:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the coverage cited in the article's References 1, 2, 3, and 7 is significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, and hence makes the article presumably suitable under the requirements of WP:GNG. There is nothing in WP:GNG about the recentness of coverage. If we go into what WP:GNG calls "a more in-depth discussion" to determine suitability, I will start with the view that the article should be retained. Mrmedley (talk) 10:34, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Notable coverage by reliable sources. ~ HAL333 00:38, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Technical barriers for new users[edit]

About "growth was not sustained", seems that Facebook is blocking new users (?), or the WT's software is buggy... Explain.

Perhaps the most frequent and attractive way to create a new user in WT Social is by reusing another account, like Twitter or Facebook. You can save time and hassle, avoiding WT Social form, password, etc. using your Facebook account to sign. But, if Facebook is blocking your "alternative competitors"?

Example. I am not a Facebook "social user", but it is working fine with sign other sites. Using Firefox web-browser, after Facebook login, I go to https://wt.social/ and press the button "Login with Facebook"... but, no authentication occurred. Facebook say: "Unconfigured app: This app is still in development mode, and you don't have access to it. Switch to a registered test user or ask an application administrator for permission." and after it the WT site say "We’re having technical problems".
Well, it may be just a bug in the WT Social software. Logging here for further analysis. Krauss (talk) 00:39, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trust café[edit]

WTS2 is named Trust café. Could You write about It? Thank You. Cassa342 (talk) 18:18, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have now included mention of Trust Café in the article. Mrmedley (talk) 02:20, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]