On Wed, 7 Oct 2009 18:53:21 -0400, Gwern Branwen wrote:
Here's what I wonder: how do we apply WP:V to
*tweets* in a few
A problem with tweets, even "official" ones, is that Twitter is a
relatively informal medium compared to most of the others that are
used as sources.
The problems one needs to consider include:
* Is the 'twitterer' actually an official spokesperson, or possibly
just somebody impersonating one? Is the account verified?
* Even if it's known to be the true, official account, do you
actually know who is providing the information there? Is it the
celebrity him/herself, or some marketing flack acting on his/her
behalf? Maybe the flack is posting stuff in the celebrity's name
that they themselves don't agree with, or vice/versa, the celebrity
is acting as a loose cannon and giving his/her top-of-the-head, spur-
of-the-moment views that don't necessarily represent what direction
their career and works will go when the marketing types get through
* Whoever it is that's posting, are they trustworthy for accurately
representing the true viewpoint of the entity involved, or are they
prone to kidding around, starting hoaxes, playing devil's advocate to
get a reaction, stirring up controversies for publicity, slinging
bullshit, getting drunk and spouting nonsense, etc.?
* If they keep changing their mind and posting contradictory stuff,
which one should be regarded as official, or should it just be
reported that they contradicted themselves? Should their errors,
typos, misstatements, misunderstandings, etc., be reported?
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/