User talk:Hmwith/Twitter

Just a blog
Honestly, we should treat it like any other site. Some blogs are personal; some corporate. Some blog posts are RS, some aren't; some major news services use blogging--Washington Post, CNN, ABC News, which are all valid RS. Some personal site blog posts are RS about the subjects. It should be just bundled into the general treatment of blogs--Twitter is no more or less reliable than *.blogspot.com or anything else public. rootology ( C )( T ) 19:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So you think that we should treat it exactly the same as a blog in every way? That seems very reasonable. If that ends up being the consensus, this whole page could be deleted!  hmwith  τ   19:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah. It's really no different than any other blogging service/site. Myspace blog, *.wordpress, *.blogger, *.blogspot, twitter, twotter, twatter, whatever is "next". It's all just a site. I know a lot of people poo poo Twitter for some weird reason as frivolous, but it's just another blog site. :) rootology ( C )( T ) 20:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with rootology. We verify the authenticity of the site just like blogs, sites, other pages, etc. Basically, links to twitter can be EL or a source. Can they be a secondary source? Only under a certain set of circumstances.  spryde |  talk  20:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

What's the point of Twitter as a source?
That's the issue for me. These messages are limited to 140 characters, so there's really not a lot of content to explain or be explained. I can accept linking to various individual tweets that have some importance of their own (fictional example: Alexander Graham Bell's tweeting his associate, "Watson come here"), but even as a primary source I would be very dubious about their value. If someone links to one, they better have a very good argument explaining why they did it to keep me from reverting the edit. -- llywrch (talk) 21:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)