Talk:TikTok/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Top 11 Famous TikTokers

1. (@charlidamelio) — 101.9 million

2. (@addisonre) — 70.6 million

3. (@zachking) — 53.1 million

4. (@lorengray) — 49.8 million

5. (@spencerx) — 49.5 million

6. (@tiktok) — 48.9 million

7. (@dixiedamelio) — 45.6 million

8. (@bellapoarch) — 45.3million

9. (@willsmith) — 44 million

10. (@justmaiko) — 44 million

11. (@riyaz.14) — 43.6 million

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Layla122 (talk • contribs)

"Use by businesses" section (revision 3)

Z1720, per your instructions above, I've opened a new edit request ticket for the "Use by businesses" section that I proposed initially over three months ago. I hope you can find the time to evaluate it. (Of course, any other editor is welcome to do so as well.)

The new section should be placed between the sections on "User characteristics and behavior" and "Country bans and attempted bans." To repeat what I said above: In this revision I've made the language more specific and less promotional, added detailed material from reliable sources, and taken care to avoid WP:UNDUE and to maintain a disinterested tone.

In October 2020, the ecommerce platform Shopify added TikTok to its portfolio of social media platforms, allowing online merchants to sell their products directly to consumers on TikTok.

Some small businesses have used TikTok to advertise and to reach an audience wider than the geographical region they would normally serve. The viral response to many small business TikTok videos has been attributed to TikTok's algorithm, which shows content that viewers at large are drawn to, but which they are unlikely to actively search for (such as videos on unconventional types of businesses, like beekeeping and logging). In some industries, such as the cosmetic industry, the follower counts of smaller "Gen-Z-founded, DIY brands" have far outstripped the follower counts of major brands using TikTok.

In 2020, digital media companies such as Group Nine Media and Global used TikTok increasingly, focusing on tactics such as brokering partnerships with TikTok influencers and developing branded content campaigns. Notable collaborations between larger brands and top TikTok influencers have included Chipotle's partnership with David Dobrik in May 2019 and Dunkin' Donuts' partnership with Charli D'Amelio in September 2020. Similarly, in the music industry, RCA Records regularly hires TikTok influencers to promote its artists, working with both well-known and lesser-known creators.

Some retail brands have incorporated TikTok into their marketing strategies by encouraging their employees to post TikTok videos and participate in TikTok challenges, while other brands have gone further by maintaining a pre-approved group of employee TikTok influencers.

References

Again, feel free to adjust the language before adding the section to the article. Thank you, Bkenny44 (talk) 15:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@Bkenny44: I added said section, but I cut out several passages from your request that I felt were too PROMO-y. Regards, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:17, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Tiktok paying fine of $92m (£66m) to settle a lawsuit accusing it of misusing artificial intelligence to track and store users' data.

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-56210052 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Digitak monk (talk • contribs) 17:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2021

“Concerns have been voiced regarding content relating to, and the promotion of spreading hateful words and far-right extremism, such as anti-semitism, racism and xenophobia” This needs to be deleted as far-right are not anti-semitism. Far-left and left are anti-semitism. Labour have proved that - you only need to read sources about Jeremy Corbyn and Keir Starmer. Lisa-Louise007 (talk) 16:38, 16 March 2021 (UTC) Lisa-Louise007 (talk) 16:38, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Antisemitism can be far right or far left, and the statement is sourced. If you'd like to have it removed please gain consensus on the talk page before opening an edit request. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:58, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2021

Under "External Links" section: - add one external links for "TikTok For Business":https://www.tiktok.com/business/

This is used to supplement the monetization context for "TikTok". Wziwei (talk) 12:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

There is already a link to the official site, which seems sufficient. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:18, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2021

99.116.242.150 (talk) 15:36, 12 April 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. EN-Jungwon 16:47, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

To add to article

To add to this article: a Wiktionary link for 抖音. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 16:47, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Excessive number of references

This article has over 200 references. Is that appropriate for an article in a general encyclopedia such as Wikipedia aspires to be? If not, what should be done? Should the references constitute a separate article? 2603:6010:4E42:500:75D1:E8E:2E6B:2FD (talk) 18:57, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that is fine. We look at the Wikipedia:Article size, not the number of references. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2021

h

Danyy-raeyy (talk) 15:06, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

my I don't want to have any Swahili tiktok

 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:14, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

SarahWilkie3

Sarah Wilkie is a Tiktoker who does videos reacting to other creators and more. She has a dog called Lori and children. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.236.73 (talk) 12:51, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Why should we add her though? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Chinese

change ((Chinese)) to ((China|Chinese)) 2601:541:4580:8500:25EB:44AB:FB7B:863C (talk) 16:04, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Per MOS:SEAOFBLUE, we should avoid having links right next to each other to avoid confusion and mis-clicking, and per MOS:OL it isn't necessary to link to China as most people know what China is, so I've removed the link instead. Thank you for pointing it out!  A S U K I T E  16:27, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2021

Ierfan12 (talk) 07:32, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

help me Ierfan12 (talk) 07:33, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

iwant to edif apps Ierfan12 (talk) 07:33, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself.   melecie   t 10:15, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Enforcing consensus on "Chinese" in lead sentence

Please revert this recent edit by User:Yeungkahchun, which goes against the consensus established at an RfC in late 2020. I would perform the revert myself, but am avoiding editing the article directly due to my COI. Pinging Sdkb, who implemented the RfC result at the time. Thank you, Bkenny44 (talk) 18:55, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@Yeungkahchun: I'm guessing you weren't aware of the prior discussion when you made that edit? Please let me know if I'm missing anything; otherwise I'm inclined to enact this request and add a hidden comment linking to the RfC. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:51, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Reverted and hidden comment added. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:42, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2021

Under viral trends change "The song rose to popularity when musician Daniel Mertzlufft composed a backing track to the song." To "The song rose to popularity when composer Daniel Mertzlufft posted a Broadway inspired arrangement of the original song." composed a backing track to the song. In response, began creating a "crowdsourced" project called Ratatouille The Musical. " DJKane29 (talk) 18:30, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:03, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2021

124.106.230.166 (talk) 04:32, 16 September 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. — IVORK _Talk 04:46, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

End this silly TikTok-Douyin duality

Why is there one article for two apps? This is totally against Wikipedia convention.

There are not one but two apps here. With significant enough (relevant) divergences from each other (meaning the difference is not just the serving of different markets). So then we should not be force-fed and be confronted with reading about not one but two apps and render the whole thing extra burdensome and confusing to the point of being one giant bloated, almost non-legible mess. This goes completely against both the spirit and the letter of Wikipedia editing protocols. Douyin is not in the same league of notability as TikTok (meaning, it's not like the world is divided into two and half of it uses one and the other half the other, so using TikTok to spam this article with Douyin breaches WP:undue weight and no doubt other editing guidelines. If Douyin is such a big deal enough to justify spamming this article all over with it, then it obviously needs its own article with emphasis on both the similarity and divergence to Tik Tok. --Loginnigol (talk) 08:28, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Douyin is just TikTok as deployed in China. It doesn't warrant its own article. Despite the subject line, what you're asking for is a "silly TikTok–Douyin duality".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:56, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• ByteDance Logo.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:53, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Re-arranging content to comply with MOS:LEAD and MOS:LAYOUT

Hi everyone, it's Billy again. I noticed that this article is currently written in a disorganized way that makes it somewhat incoherent and difficult to read from top to bottom. I would like to propose re-arranging some parts of the article in a more sensible way, to comply better with MOS:LEAD and MOS:LAYOUT.

I've created a draft for my proposed layout changes in my userspace at User:Bkenny44/TikTok (proposed layout). I'm also including a summary below of what my proposed layout changes entail:

1. Lead: Per MOS:LEAD, I propose taking paragraphs that don't summarize the article's "most important contents" and merging them into the body of the article. Specifically, that means the following:
   • Merge overly detailed content about TikTok's founding into the History section
   • Move sentences comparing and contrasting TikTok and Douyin to a new Douyin section.
   • Move sentences on TikTok's leadership changes in 2020-2021 to a new Leadership section.
   • Merge overly detailed content on the regulation of TikTok by various governments in 2020-2021 into the "Country bans and attempted bans" section (which I propose renaming "Government regulation").
     • Note: I acknowledge that the trimmed lead that I'm proposing is on the short side, but it's better than the current version, which is a hodgepodge that focuses inappropriately on minor details and places undue weight on the bans and threatened bans of TikTok in 2020-2021 - reflecting WP:RECENTISM rather than lasting importance.
2. History: Re-arrange History into more appropriate subsections: Launch (initial launch of the product); Expansion (expansion into various markets around the world); and Evolution (evolution from the merger with Musical.ly to today). This will eliminate a great deal of repetition within the article and will help the reader navigate through the chronological history of the product.
3. Features and trends: Split into three sections - Product features (with multiple appropriate subsections), Viral trends and Impact. The Impact section would contain much of the content in the current "Viral trends" subsection, which is actually about TikTok's impact rather than viral trends. The latter two subsections within the "User characteristics and behavior" section should be moved into the new "Impact" section as well.

There are also serious WP:UNDUE and WP:CSECTION issues pertaining to the "Controversies" and "Legal issues" sections, but I want to focus just on MOS:LEAD and MOS:LAYOUT at the moment - hopefully we'll be able to work on fixing the other problems in the future.

Please comment if you think my proposed layout changes are reasonable - looking forward to hearing your input. Thanks, Bkenny44 (talk) 19:07, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

• Largely concur with the proposal, at least in general. I have not pored over every single line of it, with my PoV detectors turned on, but I agree with Bkenny44's concerns about the disorganization, and that the gist of the proposed reorganization of the material would be an improvement for our readers. The only parts I might be skeptical about are: A) separating "Viral trends" and "Impact". Maybe keep these together as a typical "Public reception" section (that also avoids using the insipid and grossly overused buzzword "viral"). "Impact" also has a PoV feel to it; who is WP to say that something was impactful rather than simply that it happened/exists? B) We're not in a position to minimize the legal/regulatory issues as much as the reviser would like us to; this is what is generating the most coverage (i.e. sources, and what the sources are writing), while RECENTISM and "lasting importance" verge on meaningless when it comes to Internet stuff, which is all "recent" even within the context of modernity, and of uncertain long-term meaningfulness (who still remembers BBSes and 56K modems, gopher, Mosaic, Netscape Navigator, Friendster, ICQ, LiveJournal, and Alexa, or that MySpace was once the leading social networking site instead of a music portal?). PS: Yes, it is wise to cleanly separate this from any UNDUE/CSECTION debates one might want to open. That's an entirely different discussion.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

  @SMcCandlish: Thanks for chiming in here. If no other editor objects, it would be great if you could begin implementing my proposal, taking into account your own thoughts regarding the particulars. Keep in mind that a few weeks have gone by since I created User:Bkenny44/TikTok (proposed layout), so the draft doesn't reflect any edits made to the article since then. To comment on the two points you singled out:

  • Impact: I looked at other articles on social networking services, which all have some version of this kind of section. See: Facebook#Impact; Twitter#Impact; YouTube#Social impact; and Instagram#Impact on people and Instagram#Impact on businesses. I'm not opposed to finding a better word (Twitter has Twitter#Society, which could work), but "Reception" seems inapt to me, unless the content is actually about how the platform has been received, i.e., praise and criticism.
  • Government regulation: Point taken re the lasting importance of internet stuff. I'm sure you would acknowledge, though, that the topic of government regulation is currently over-represented in the lead.

  Thanks again, Bkenny44 (talk) 14:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

  "Society" sounds reasonable. Several other articles misuing a PoV term like "Impact" just means we have more articles in which to fix that problem. I'll consider implementation of merging your draft and the current version after a bit. It'll be a fair amount of work and I'm again having hardware problems on my PC (seems to be a motherboard heat issue), so I have bigger fish to fry, short-term.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:00, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• @SMcCandlish: Thank you! Bkenny44 (talk) 16:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

  Just as a passing comment from your message on my talk page, I agree that this is a good layout change. In controversies, I'd put content and privacy issues above addiction. Most of the news stories I see are about those two. It also might be a good idea to clarify what is a legal issue and what's a controversy. Most of the subsections of "User privacy concerns" are legal in nature. Anarchyte (talk) 13:03, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

should add Kesha somewhere in the page.

Kesha released a song called TiK ToK in late 2009, and i think the page should mention the song since the song's page mentions the app. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danger Days Fabulous Killjoy (talk • contribs) 11:35, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Neither article should mention the other, except as disambiguation WP:HATNOTE, unless there's an actual connection between the song and service.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

and there isn't because Kesha released her song of tiktok before the app tiktok was publicly known 41.114.178.195 (talk) 18:59, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

Multiple automated WikiEd notices

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2019 and 13 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tgill98. Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC) This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 11 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ssblee98. Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC) This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2020 and 27 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tug99021. Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC) This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 April 2020 and 20 June 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SharonYubinKang, Infinitty00. Peer reviewers: Phchan1, Vuongc3, Gracewang0424, Villa0439, Itsrufuswang, Yuki119808, Natongyang. Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC) This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2020 and 14 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Templejoe2000. Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC) This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2020 and 7 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Shangyingsun. Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC) This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2020 and 14 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Templejoe2000. Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC) This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2020 and 25 October 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cjsaez. Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC) This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2020 and 7 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Shangyingsun. Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC) This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 August 2020 and 18 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Annecsw, Tmissell. Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 August 2021 and 27 October 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Spokane1999. Peer reviewers: Fitzinator2, Awymer, Nathanjlyttle, Ladydanbury.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 October 2021 and 9 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Amber MWY, Sleep by 11.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2022

Add a citation https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/19/short-video-apps-like-douyin-tiktok-are-dominating-chinese-screens.html to the line

TikTok was downloaded more than 104 million times on Apple's App store during the full first half of 2018, according to data provided to CNBC by Sensor Tower.

There is a graph under the "Shorter videos and Stronger obsessions" section of article where the information was seemingly taken from.

I could not get the Wayback Machine to backup the page for archival purposes. AGuyNamedSquid (talk) 21:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done Added! aboideau^{talk to me!} 23:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2022

Change references to Facebook as a company to Meta. Sturdy4days (talk) 01:26, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: most or all references to Facebook are specifically to the social media website and not the renamed parent company. SpinningCeres 01:17, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Section about Alt TikTok

I added some information about Alt TikTok under the features and trends. Let me know if anything should be removed/improved :)Spiderwinebottle (talk) 14:07, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Note that KnowYourMeme is not a reliable source. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 15:41, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2022

Add this section above Content and Usage>Use by Businesses:

Use by Nonprofits

TikTok offers two tools to support nonprofit organizations: TikTok for Good and the Donation Sticker. TikTok for Good provides nonprofits account management support, access to analytics, and promotion of their cause to target user groups. Though, participating in TikTok for Good reduces the nonprofit's account access to certain filters and audio clips. Nonprofits may include a donation sticker on their TikTok posts and encourage other users to include their donation sticker on their posts. Users click on the donation sticker to give directly to the cause. Nonprofits primarily use TikTok for building community, while also using the app to share information with users and inspire followers to act on behalf of their cause. Kwileyfl (talk) 12:57, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Note: reformatted paragraph above for legibility.

 Not done. I agree that use by nonprofits is something that can be added to the article given that there are reliable sources to support it. TikTok themself is a WP:SELFPUB, and Tiltify doesn't look reliable. The journal article is usable. Find more reliable sources and try again. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 01:07, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

References

Tiktok doesn't let truth be told on sensitive topics

Tik tok let's people whom don't like the truth to shut it down. You can complain against the truth on tiktok and truth gets banned. 58.165.125.83 (talk) 11:01, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

While it's possible that TikTok might be suppressing some information or artificially lowering its visibility on the platform, you need to provide a good source (journalistic investigation or report, for example) on it, for it to be added to the page. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 15:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Collab house into TikTok

This article is just a long re-telling of a single news article (Harpers) that described Collab houses (which a few random mentions of the similar NYT article), and doesn't need an article of its own. It could just be an expanded mention of the Collab House section in the TikTok article. ZimZalaBim ^talk 13:23, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Hey, I disagree. I think that the collab house phenomenon deserves a standalone article. That said, I agree the existing article is poorly sourced. I'd just improve the collab house article instead of merging. I'll add it to my to-do list! A quick search yields articles in Vox, Harpers, NYT (not the same NYT as the article that's already cited), and a handful of others. Let me know what you think! Thanks and happy editing :) Crunchydillpickle (talk) 20:05, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Oppose - current article probably could be better, but there are other "collab houses" for YouTubers, Twitch streamers, or other content creators. Tiktokers collab houses are just one example, that the current article seems to be focusing on. WikiVirusC^(talk) 20:11, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Oppose - collab houses are not just TikTokers, they can also be YouTubers, streamers, etc. The article can definitely be improved, but I don't think it should be merged into this article. CLYDE (TALK) 23:14, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Also oppose and by consensus, I'm closing/removing the template. Caleb Stanford (talk) 01:38, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

New article for TikTok trends?

The "Content and uses" section feels long and winded. It also focuses heavily on American trends and creators. It might be cumbersome to document so many trends in one subsection. Could we potentially cut this down or make a new article that describes trends specific to different regions in the world?

Phreshwater (talk) 09:48, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I think at the rate new trends appear on TikTok it would be both extremally long and a bit of a fools errand to do so. Also what would even be the critera for a "trend". The content on TikTok is so divere that some "trends" could completly pass by many users of the platform. FishandChipper 🐟🍟 09:10, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I'd say (a lot of) media coverage of a trend would be enough to include it on an article. Someone made an article about food trends on TikTok, so its not completely unprecedented. 𝙨𝙥𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙧-𝙬𝙞𝙣𝙚-𝙗𝙤𝙩𝙩𝙡𝙚^{(🕷) - (call me maybe)} 16:22, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I support the idea as well, considering that TikTok is now one of the most popular "social media" sites and that coverage of its trends appears pretty regularly (even if they're short-lived), the article would have plenty to draw from. Perhaps set a standard of "at least two RS publications made an article on it" to ignore the lesser stuff. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 19:28, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Proposing split for Douyin

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi everyone. I am proposing the creation of a separate article for Douyin, TikTok's Chinese sister app, and that the material about Douyin currently in the TikTok article be moved there. As a proof of concept, to show that a Douyin article would be a lengthy entry in its own right, with rich, encyclopedic content that would barely overlap with the TikTok article, I've created a draft for a potential Douyin article in my userspace, here: User:Bkenny44/Douyin

Those of you who have been watching this Talk page for a while know that there was a discussion on this question two years ago, which was closed as no consensus: Talk:TikTok/Archive 2#Should we make Douyin a separate page?. In that discussion, supporters of the split mostly argued that TikTok and Douyin are two separate apps with completely separate userbases and mutually inaccessible collections of content. Opponents argued that they are basically the same app offered under different names in different locations, and there are no significant differences. Opponents also argued that all the encyclopedic information on Douyin could fit easily and sensibly into the TikTok article, since not that much distinct, verifiable information on Douyin exists.

Even if the points made by the 2020 discussions's opponents were valid then, they are certainly difficult to accept now, two years later. Douyin has its own distinct history, functionality and identity, which have been widely covered by RS, in particular by Chinese-language media and by sources like South China Morning Post, which focuses heavily on China and Chinese culture. Unlike TikTok, Douyin is used extensively for e-commerce, livestreaming and gaming. There are also differences in the two apps' respective histories and cultural impact, which diverged upon TikTok's creation for the international market in 2017. In addition, the way that corporate brands in China (both local and international, in particular luxury and cosmetics brands) use Douyin has been emphasized by numerous RS and has no real analogue in the world of TikTok.

And any concerns that there is not enough encyclopedic information to justify a separate Douyin article should be allayed upon reviewing User:Bkenny44/Douyin. The draft is comprised mostly of new material derived from reliable sources covering Douyin as a subject in its own right, unconnected to TikTok except occasionally in article headlines and ledes as a helpful reference point for non-Chinese readers.

A final note: As I've disclosed in the past, I work for ByteDance, the parent company of both TikTok and Douyin. And it is no secret that it is in ByteDance's interest as a company to distinguish between these two sister apps, which have different identities and play different roles within their respective societies - and which many people incorrectly conflate. That notwithstanding, the split that I'm proposing here also serves the interests of the Wikipedia community and the average reader, and most importantly for this discussion, I believe it is simply the correct thing to do per Wikipedia's content guidelines. Thank you all in advance for weighing in. Bkenny44 (talk) 13:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Bkenny44 (talk) 18:16, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support There is enough information distinct to each to justify separate articles. Bluerasberry (talk) 13:24, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support and also think that article about musical.ly should be mereged in the TikTok article. Kalabochik7 (talk) 13:53, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

  I'm pretty sure musical.ly is independently notable and very different from modern TikTok. Not particularly relevant to this discussion, though. Ovinus (talk) 17:12, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

• Strong oppose I question the timing of this proposed split, as only a couple days before you proposed this, TikTok revealed that China had access to U.S user data for months. (NPR.) Most, if not all of your edits have to do with TikTok related articles, and your position seems to indicate that you work on public relations for ByteDance, the parent company of both TikTok and Douyin. Furthermore, I question the fact that a ByteDance employee wrote the entirety of the proposed Douyin article draft, and with sentences like [Kelly Zhang] has been credited with helping create and launch Douyin in 2016 and contributing to its rapid growth., it just doesn't come off as neutral to me. I'm sorry, but I question your motivations and don't understand why other editors are supporting this change. Thank you. rogueshanghai^{chat (they/them)} 22:02, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nom. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 00:40, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nom. --SHB2000 (talk) 13:06, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Same company, this is just an attempt to distance a product from a less popular parent. This rfc is designed to help the business interests of tiktok more than the readers of Wikipedia. Denny Sound (talk) 16:18, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose looking over the content suggestion you’ve made in User:Bkenny44/Douyin, I am convinced that many of your suggestions can be incorporated into TikTok directly. Many multi-national corporations operate unique/splintered versions of their products for Mainland China users. Asides from the concerns of bifurcating criticism, I am also concerned about the wiki community’s ability to ensure neutral/balanced tone across multiple articles that are effectively about the same app with different locality/regions. It irks me when people treat the USA as center of world view, and similarly irks me when people treat China as somehow exempt/special case from encyclopedic topics. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 16:40, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose The proposed draft is written entirely by a COI editor and is highly fluffy, as noted by shanghai. Conceivably the products could be treated independently, but I’d rather not it be a vehicle to bowdlerize the main TikTok article; if a non-COI editor would write a Douyin article and bring it to the table, I'd reconsider. (It's not unprecedented or even a bad idea to have articles on products which differ across countries, see Google China which I think is fine. But I do care who writes it.) Ovinus (talk) 17:10, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

  Douyin and TikTok are totally separate from each other in content, and Douyin has more features (often ethically questionable ones). Treating the products in one article is fine, but there should be more in-body information on the difference between the services—see [1] for a brief but interesting analysis. Such information would obviate the need for a standalone Douyin article, imv. Ovinus (talk) 20:37, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. The proposal explains the differences between TikTok and Douyin, but doesn't explain why that difference mandates separate articles. Aspects of businesses, products and services often vary substantially between regions; while it's probably unusual for an online service to differ quite so substantially, that doesn't make it a unique case requiring a potentially confusing sui generis solution. The proposer acknowledges the objection that all the encyclopedic information on Douyin could fit easily and sensibly into the TikTok article, then dismisses it without giving any sense of why they apparently think that encyclopaedic information couldn't easily fit into this article. There's little substance here, little basis in any recognisable policy or guideline, and very little to convince that this is a necessary split. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:14, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Despite some variant functionality, the two apps are essentially the same product, and certainly share a conjoined history and a context for operations, public perception, and social influence that is best presented to the reader in a unified article. I also agree that the concerns raised by the identity of the COI party advancing this proposal (even if transparently disclosed), as well as the timing, raise some real questions about whether it was made in the best interest of the reader or the purveyors of these services. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 21:13, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Any information relating to Douyin could easily fit on the TikTok page. In fact highlighting the differences on this page would be a nice way of doing things. Gusfriend (talk) 22:56, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose the two are not sufficiently distinct to warrant a split. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:23, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per the rationales above: need to split has not been demonstrated. -Ljleppan (talk) 06:51, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose For me, it's the fact that the split article was created in a single edit, by a single user, with an absolutely obvious COI issue. It appears this was written off-wiki and copy-pasted in. (if this was created on-wiki somewhere and moved here, I would be surprised)

Then, breaking down that article, it appears to have a single line regarding controversies, in the lede of all places, with no other mention of controversy in the article. This community written article on TikTok, owned by the same parent company as the proposed split's subject, contains an extensive controvery section, covering the extensive controversy regarding this subject. The proposed article, written by company staffers, features a single line.

With this diff from the proposing editor's talk page, which clearly states a desire to push a more, according to the company, neutral article(This is actually one of the reasons we are focused on the TikTok Wikipedia page. We want to make sure the perception of TikTok is fair and accurate and it is our responsibility to make sure that happens, at least to the best of our ability. is the relevant part. Note the plural we, instead of the singular "I", and their stated "responsibiity" to keep the article "fair and accurate"). I think this should be closed as Not Done, simply because any article coming from a source with a clear COI interest, and a stated intent to push a more company preferred view of the page, would have to be significantly edited and balanced for a neutral POV FrederalBacon (talk) 09:29, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I should note: My opposition is not to a split of articles. If that is needed, then that is what is needed, and the community can decide to do that. My only objection, and only interest in this subject, is to prevent an article from entering the namespace that would require just as much work to fix to make neutral as it would to start a new article by taking content from this article, if it were needed. FrederalBacon (talk) 09:33, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose, I can't see a real rationale to split the two and there are COI concerns regarding the motives for this split. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 12:37, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - The default stance is to not split an article unless a clear need or justification is presented, and that isn't the case here. We shouldn't split just because "we can". The subject matter can and should be covered in a single article at this time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:52, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wiki Education assignment: Technology and Culture

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2022 and 16 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ah temple (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by BlueWaterBottle67 (talk) 16:47, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Proposed addition

Hello everyone, may I suggest to add a sentence under the History section, please? After the current line "In July 2020, TikTok, excluding Douyin, reported close to 800 million monthly active users worldwide after less than four years of existence", I would like to propose to add "This number has since exceeded one billion in the following year". This addition corresponds to the latest TikTok monthly active user statistic. Kindly refer to TikTok's news for this updates, please. Thank you! ArgonautOfHistory (talk) 09:00, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Already in the article, last line of the Evolution subsection. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 09:44, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh yes, you are right! Thanks, @ASpacemanFalls! :) ArgonautOfHistory (talk) 09:51, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Addition to bottom of U.S. section?

9/22 It's now being used for voter registration in the U.S., in spite of security concerns expressed: https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/10/politics/tiktok-voter-registration/index.html

Thanks! 2600:4040:780C:6F00:3913:CFC9:7CF5:C057 (talk) 19:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Media Culture -BN

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2022 and 13 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hefnerp2, Hmanzo, Riosmaureirac (article contribs). Peer reviewers: GiancarloBro.

— Assignment last updated by GiancarloBro (talk) 17:31, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Lead Paragraphs

The last paragraph of the lead talks about criticism. I don't believe this is something that should be included in the lead parapgraph, most users do not see Tiktok for this and it can be addressed in the body. I believe we should remove: "TikTok has been subject to criticism over psychological effects such as addiction, as well as controversies over inappropriate content, misinformation, censorship and moderation, and user privacy."

I'm noticing a trend on wikipedia where all negative information and pejorative words are commonly used in the leads, and that is not what Wiki was inteded for. Thoughts on removing this from the lead? Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 13:27, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

As per WP:LEAD, the lead of an article includes "any prominent controversies". 𝙨𝙥𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙧-𝙬𝙞𝙣𝙚-𝙗𝙤𝙩𝙩𝙡𝙚^{(🕷) - (✉)} 13:49, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, TikTok has been widely criticized by reliable sources, even more so than most social media entities. Ovinus (talk) 23:46, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

TikTok, Boom., documentary film

I just created an article for TikTok, Boom., a newly released film about TikTok. Any help would be appreciated. Thriley (talk) 19:45, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA22 - Sect 201 - Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 September 2022 and 8 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sp6796 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Sp6796 (talk) 00:35, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

citation inflation?

In the paragraph starting "In June 2022, reports emerged that ByteDance employees in China could access US data and repeatedly accessed the private information of TikTok users," a total of 5 sources are cited, in two sets of three after two different points in the paragraph: an Engagdet article, a PCMag article, a Guardian article, a Buzzfeed News article, and a Verge article. The Engadget, PCMag, Guardian, and Verge articles are all reports on the existence of the Buzzfeed News article—is this normal practice here? It seems to me like the way the citations are presented there would tend to create the false impression that the claim was independently corroborated by multiple sources. (On which point it's also incorrect to say "reports emerged," because it was actually one report, and while I'm here also it was a report on the contents of meetings TikTok was having about closing security gaps, of which acknowledging gaps is a necessary step, and the timeline on which that testing was taking place is consistent with the claims TikTok had made about their progress in securing the US user data, but that's a lot more editorial than I think is typical for Wikipedia, and the Buzzfeed article does strictly speaking exist, and was itself widely reported on.) Txwatson (talk) 12:38, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

The practice you mentioned is not ideal but is quite common on Wikipedia, especially on anything political. Some editors like to just skim the headlines or a couple of paragraphs without actually going through the source. CurryCity (talk) 11:31, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Controversies section

Header added. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:19, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi, about Controversies section it would be better idea to separate it from the main article and make a sup-article focused only on Controversies like Donald Trump–TikTok controversy because its too long and it can't be summarize without missing important things. Lililolol (talk) 01:03, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

See WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. We would still need a summary in this article, just a more compact one. Our readers understand they are missing detail when then encounter something like {{Main|Donald Trump–TikTok controvery}} followed by a compact summary, and understand that they need to go to the named spin-off article to get that detail.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:35, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Privacy section

What is with the phrasing of the information under the "Privacy" section under "Controversies"? gangplank galleon (talk) 20:40, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

You're being too vague for it to be clear what your concern is.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:16, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

September 6, 2016 that's when TikTok was Founded!

173.167.187.20 (talk) 23:41, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:14, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA22 - Sect 200 - Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 September 2022 and 8 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): BL33701 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by QiweiDuan (talk) 02:23, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Requests to add to the "trends"

https://9to5google.com/2022/09/20/adrod-13-tiktok/ https://www.hitc.com/en-gb/2022/11/04/tiktoks-ohio-trend-has-become-the-latest-meme-on-the-platform/ https://mashable.com/article/doubloons-dabloons-tiktok-trend 204.100.235.152 (talk) 16:06, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Alt TikToks:

https://slang.net/meaning/booktok

https://slang.net/meaning/techtoker 204.100.235.152 (talk) 16:07, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Controversies section

I think this could be trimmed down a bit. Sections like "Appropriation from Black content creators" and "ISIL propaganda" don't really seem noteworthy enough. Eldomtom2 (talk) 21:25, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

It should be added I think that in the U.S. as of early December 2022 "at least 14 states have banned TikTok on government-issued devices." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milford1945 (talk • contribs) 01:16, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

References

Wiki Education assignment: CMN2160B

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 September 2022 and 15 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Xinyue Hu (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Xinyue Hu (talk) 13:29, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 December 2022

202.36.63.68 (talk) 08:30, 25 December 2022 (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. Khrincan (talk) 18:48, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi

Hello sir how can we contact you 59.153.126.132 (talk) 15:05, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Who is "we" and who is "you"?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:20, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Lead Paragraph last two sentences misleading&not backed by cited source

The one source used to back this claim does not support this claim at all. The WaPo article is about Facebook buying negative PR for TikTok (concerning supposed dangerous trends starting on TikTok). Right-wing US politics aren't even mentioned, neither are accusations of spying for the PRC government, and especially the end goal of stoking anti-Chinese racism, is not in the text. This is currently grossly misleading, I would suggest deleting the two sentences. C9po (talk) 07:18, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

That's even less consistent with the current Wikipedia article. According to the newly linked article, doubts about TikTok data security are a bipartisan stance in the US, that contradicts the Wiki article. Also, this article does not proof that those claims are conspiracy theories and untrue, it just says, that many US politicians say, that there is a problem, and that TikTok denies that. C9po (talk) 08:19, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Apart from the source not supporting what is currently in the article, I doubt, that Facebook's smear campaign is such a relevant controversy, that it should be featured in the lead sentence. Calling doubts about data security a conspiracy theory and alleging racist intentions without a source backing that claim, is clearly against the guidelines and values of Wikipedia (WP is not a source of original information: Info on WP needs sources. Claiming, that something is backed by a credible source, although the source doesn't, is generally bad, not just on WP) C9po (talk) 08:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

This source does not say what is in the wiki article now, either. Currently, the article reads, that accusations of TikTok cooperating with the chinese regime are wrong. The source does not give proof for that. I would not keep this section in the lead paragraph, the controversies section gives a much more nuanced and better sourced overview of the topic. Just stating, that those accusations are wrong, although it is nearly impossible to prove or disprove them, in the lead paragraph, without having a proper source, is not good.

Also, the current wording is misleading, as the end goal of Facebook/Meta's campaign was not stoking racism (although they certainly were okay with that also happening), but instead they tried to profit off this sentiment. I would just cut this part completely from the lead paragraph, as it is too insignificant for that.

For such an important controversy, Wikipedia giving a completely wrong impression without proper sources in their lead sentence, is scandalous. C9po (talk) 15:29, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I looked at your concerns just now, and have removed the references to Meta and China from the lead paragraph. Although Taylor Lorenz specifically stated that Meta was helping that Republican consulting film stoke anti-China sentiment during an interview with MSNBC last year, you were right at the fact that it wasn't nuanced. Ahd it would definitely give the China hawks more ammunition to accuse Wikipedia of leftism. WakeFan1991 (talk) 13:22, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

References

The Reason edit

To clarify, @Riverbend21:, the reason I removed that criticism section is because, according to WP:RS/P:

There is consensus that Reason is generally reliable for news and facts. Editors consider Reason to be a biased or opinionated source that primarily publishes commentary, analysis, and opinion articles. Statements of opinion should be attributed and evaluated for due weight.

While it can be used for facts, using it for opinion pieces and criticism is a more debatable inclusion, as I said in the edit summary. I'd hardly say criticism comparing a ban of TikTok to the policies of the Chinese Communist Party is non-biased. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 16:35, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2023

Saying "Tiktok, also known as Douyin抖音" is innaproatiate as it infers that one can use the names tiktok and douyin interchangeably, which is not the reality. when people in China or anywhere say 抖音 they mean 抖音, not TikTok; they're separate apps. I believe it should be described as either a version or a completely separate thing. 120.21.231.119 (talk) 01:16, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Lightoil (talk) 03:25, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Project Texas

It looks like there is currently no mention of Project Texas anywhere in the article about TikTok, nor could I find mention of it elsewhere on Wikipedia. Here are a few sources:

• TikTok Parent ByteDance Planned To Use TikTok To Monitor The Physical Location Of Specific American Citizens — Forbes
• TikTok’s New Defense in Washington: Going on the Offense — The New York Times
• Inside Project Texas, TikTok’s Big Answer To US Lawmakers’ China Fears — BuzzFeed News
• TikTok tries to sell 'Project Texas' as it fights for survival in the U.S. — NBC News
• Project Texas: The Details of TikTok's Plan to Remain Operational in the United States — Lawfare
• Is Project Texas enough to save TikTok? — NPR
• TikTok CEO Says 'Project Texas' to Allay US Security Concern — Bloomberg

Pretty major story, should probably be included in the article. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 18:30, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Community Guidelines and Transparency Center

Hi everyone. I noticed the article currently has no description of TikTok's Community Guidelines or of the platform's Transparency Center, both of which topics have been covered extensively in RS. I'm proposing new subsections for both these topics, to be added within the "Content and usage" section.

I am also proposing a new paragraph about two of TikTok's content customization features, the "Content Levels" rating system and the ability to selectively mute hashtags.

• Community Guidelines - subsection in "Content and usage" section:

TikTok maintains and enforces Community Guidelines applying to the platform's users and content. The stated purpose of the guidelines is to "establish a set of norms and common code of conduct that provide for a safe and welcoming space for everyone."

Prior to 2020, the Community Guidelines consisted of a few bullet points relating only to the most extreme content. In January 2020, TikTok expanded its guidelines significantly, adding 10 categories of content subject to removal by moderators, including terrorist propaganda, hate speech, sexual content. The changes to the guidelines placed an emphasis on child safety, newly prohibiting videos depicting minors consuming alcohol, drugs and tobacco. The guidelines also ban "the depiction, trade, or promotion of firearms," except in the contexts of use by law enforcement and use in "a safe and controlled environment such as a shooting range."

Originally, video content violating the Community Guidelines would be removed from the platform, but the content's creator would not be informed of which policy the content violated. In October 2020, TikTok announced it would begin telling users which policy they violated that resulted in the deletion of their content.

In February 2022, TikTok updated the Community Guidelines again, newly banning deadnaming, misgendering, misogyny, promotion of conversion therapy and promotion of disordered eating.

• Transparency Center - another subsection in "Content and usage" section:

TikTok's Transparency Center is a virtual hub providing public access to the various "transparency reports" it publishes, including reports on Community Guidelines enforcement, government removal requests, intellectual property removal requests, information requests and California privacy rights. In July 2022, TikTok announced that later in 2022 it would provide "selected researchers" with access to the platform's moderation tools at the Transparency Center, allowing them to evaluate the moderation system and conduct experiments with different types of content.

• New paragraph to be added to end of "Features" section:

In July 2022, TikTok introduced its "Content Levels" rating system, in which human moderators evaluate video content and assign a "maturity score" meant to prevent younger users from viewing age-inappropriate material. TikTok also rolled out a feature allowing users to selectively mute hashtags, so users can avoid being shown videos they do not want to see.

References

Thanks, Bkenny44 (talk) 21:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

•  Not done: article is too long to be adding trivial content like this. ––FormalDude (talk) 15:50, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  @FormalDude: I agree that the article is too long. But the solution should not be to block the inclusion of encyclopedic content that is well within the scope of the article and which has ample coverage in top-tier RS. TikTok's Community Guidelines are a fundamental part of how the platform functions, i.e., what types of content are and are not allowed to appear in videos (covered in strong RS such as Wired, The Verge, NPR and others). The platform's Transparency Center, as the cited article in The Verge makes clear, is especially significant because of the active public discourse surrounding TikTok's moderation policies and how they are implemented. And the "Content Levels" feature is a critical and basic change made to the way younger users interact with the platform, which has been covered in sources like Gizmodo and CNET.

A better way to deal with the length of the article would be to pare down existing parts of the article that are excessively detailed, and merge those details to other, split-off articles where relevant. Some examples:

• The Viral trends section should be cut down significantly and most of its contents split off to a new article on TikTok trends. This idea was raised a few months ago and got some support at Talk:TikTok#New article for TikTok trends? but does not appear to have been implemented since then. (Pinging the editors who took part in that discussion: Phreshwater, FishandChipper, Spiderwinebottle, ASpacemanFalls)
• The Bans and attempted bans section should be summarized at a high level, and most of the content should be split off into the existing articles Censorship of TikTok and Donald Trump-TikTok controversy.
• The Controversies section is by far the longest section in the article, which strikes me as inappropriate for any article, no matter how extensive the news coverage generated by the controversies. I hope that an unbiased editor will take the time to review this section and trim any excessive and WP:UNDUE subsections.

Thanks, Bkenny44 (talk) 20:23, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

(Note: @Bkenny44 asked me to take a look at this discussion.) I think we should definitely be covering the content standards in the article. However, the proposed text is one-sided in that it includes only what guidelines TikTok publishes and leaves out discussion of how they're enforced (or not enforced, or parleyed into censorship) in practice, something that has been the subject of substantial media coverage (see e.g. [2]).

The transparency center is probably worth a sentence, but again will need some independent research to avoid COI bias. I'd support one sentence summarizing what reliable sources say about the degree to which TikTok has or has not been transparent about sharing its data with researchers. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:34, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

@Sdkb: Thanks for responding. I think the balance you're looking for can already be found in other parts of the article. I would point in particular to the Content censorship and moderation by the platform section, but examples can be found elsewhere as well: paragraph 7 in Viral trends; paragraph 2 in Bangladesh; paragraphs 3-4 in Content concerns; paragraph 1 in Misinformation; ISIL propaganda; and paragraph 2 in Cyberbullying. In any article, some parts will naturally reflect more positively on the subject and some parts will reflect more negatively. Alternatively, perhaps some of the elements found in these critical sections could be summarized and appended to the proposed Community Guidelines subsection.

Similarly regarding the transparency center, the article already contains a balancing line about transparency, at the start of the "Content censorship" section: "TikTok's censorship policy has been criticized as non-transparent." The line is sourced to a different Verge article published a year before the Verge article about the Transparency Center - both are independent sources. I don't believe there has been any follow-up news coverage about the access intended to be granted to researchers, as it has only been three months since this was announced. Maybe some version of that critical sentence should be integrated into the proposed content about the transparency center. I hope that makes sense. Bkenny44 (talk) 12:57, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I think both the CG and TC should be covered in this article, and I agree with the second and third suggestions for moving content out of this article into other ones (I don't agree with the first, a suggestion to create yet another spin-off article). Just dealing with those two would make plenty of room. I agree with Sdkb that balancing content that is not from TikTok's perspective is required. Bkenny44 is correct that some of this can come from moving content already in the article to the new subsections. Alternatively, the TC might not need a subsection and might be better discussed where this balancing material already is, under "Content censorship". But Sdkb's additional source should also be used, and probably more. Also, the CG material drafted above can be considerably compressed.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:13, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Seems like the discussion died off, which is a shame. I would still support the removal of the viral trends subsection and spinning it off into another article. Perhaps not one entirely dedicated to TikTok trends but one that encompasses a few social platforms? Though finding RS for many of them might prove difficult, so it's a tentative support, at this point.

For Controversies, the section has grown too long indeed and I think, in particular, the user data and privacy subsection deserves its own page. But some of the content in the section feels superficial and could, at least, be condensed to not have as many dividers, making it seem like sections such as Microtransactions have substantial information whereas it is actually a sentence long and doesn't provide much information beyond the criticism existing (not even where it originated.)

For the Bans section, most of its content can be slotted into other articles that are more focused on the subject. As it is, too much space in an article devoted to TikTok (in general) is devoted to the lengthy and, let's be honest, not very fruitful process of trying to get it banned in the US. Unless it does come to pass, we can simply trim it and keep the ongoing attempts in their own article. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 16:01, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Gah, was so engrossed in writing out the move discussion points, that I forgot to address the initial question. I believe mentioning the Transparency Center is a good idea, provided that it comes with neutral wording. Community Guidelines may be a stretch as it's something you can find on any platform and doesn't really merit a deep look, in my view. Are TikTok's Guidelines remarkable for any particular reason? Things like banning the promotion of firearms and hateful content aren't something worth mentioning unless there are prominent examples of those guidelines being enacted in a meaningful way. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 16:06, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

@ASpacemanFalls: Thanks for reviving this discussion! To address the last point, TikTok's community guidelines have generated a good deal of news coverage, in part because the platform has been heavily scrutinized over the years for its approach to content moderation (see this Wired source for one example).

Zooming out a bit, it seems that most of us here agree on the broad strokes of what is needed here. With respect to the content I proposed at the top of this thread, most agree that some material should be added, though not necessarily in the exact language that I suggested. And both ASpacemanFalls and SMcCandlish agree generally on moving content out of this article and into other articles, though SMcCandlish did not agree on doing so for the Viral trends section. ASpacemanFalls, would you be willing to make a WP:BOLD attempt at implementing the agreed-upon parts of this discussion? I'm not doing so directly due to my COI, and as you said, it would be a shame for this discussion to die off without yielding any progress in the article. Thanks, Bkenny44 (talk) 19:56, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I can certainly take a stab at it and I think the community would help round it down (or up) to the proper state that would be agreeable with everyone. I'll give it a go soon. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 21:52, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Project Clover

Also no mention of Project Clover in the TikTok article. Here are some sources:

• TikTok unveils new European data security regime — Reuters
• TikTok launches Project Clover to allay China security fears — BBC
• TikTok unveils new European data security regime — NBC News
• TikTok Rolls Out 'Project Clover' to Assure Europeans on Data — The Wall Street Journal
• TikTok launches 'Project Clover' charm offensive to fend off European bans — Politico
• With Project Clover, TikTok touts new EU data privacy and security efforts — TechCrunch
• Project Clover is TikTok's effort to get ahead of EU privacy and security concerns — Engadget

A similar data localization plan being put in place, this time in Europe. Whereas Project Texas is related to the North American market. Both the Clover & Texas projects should be included in the article, in my opinion. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 03:26, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Translation of TikTok wrong

The Wiki page Tik Tok has the name Tik Tok incorrectly translated as "sound vibration". Tik tok in Chinese translates to Dou Yin which means Acne marks or acne scars. However this page is unable to be edited and remains incorrect. Robertball118 (talk) 13:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2023

In the “Viral trends” topic of the “Content and usage” section, change “Chamberlin as Gusteau” to “Kevin Chamberlin as Gusteau”, with a link to Chamberlin’s Wikipedia article imbedded into his name. 71.191.41.118 (talk) 00:17, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done Tollens (talk) 02:11, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2023

• Add the following wiki links in TikTok#Content concerns: "hateful words" → hate speech, anti-semitism, racism, xenophobia, "expressly deny the existence of the Holocaust" → Holocaust denial, white supremacy, Syrian refugee camps
• "In June 2021, TikTok updated its privacy policy to include a collection of biometric data" → "include collection" 93.72.49.123 (talk) 15:08, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Also, how come no criticism is included in the lead section when the "Controversies" section takes up nearly one-half of the article? At least a sentence should be added. I suggest: "TikTok has been criticized for its privacy practices, including letting the employees of its parent company ByteDance access its users' data, and for censoring content by LGBTQ+, poor and disabled people and content critical of the Chinese government and the Chinese Communist Party." 93.72.49.123 (talk) 15:37, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done Largely good suggestions, I added the rewording on both counts, though I did tinker with the intro sentence. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 16:21, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Add information

I suggest adding this information to the paragraph to the section on "content concerns":

Ausschwitz inmate trend

The history of the Holocaust can also be distorted through universalization that decontextualizes the historical reality of this past. It is often unintentional, unrecognized and not necessarily done with any antisemitic intent. It can also reflect a deep-rooted unwillingness to confront the historical reality of the Holocaust – that this was a genocide of Jews, committed and facilitated by non-Jews. In some forms – such as the TikTok Holocaust trend in Summer 2020 where young creators posted short videos of themselves in the role of dead Holocaust victims – it may not be immediately clear what motivates such behaviour and representations. Deeply offensive and distressing to many, it appears that, in some cases at least, this may have been an attempt to respond to learning about the Holocaust and to educate others. Such distorted representations of the past nonetheless have significant consequences for public knowledge, memory, discourse and historical understanding.

Content moderation policies

I suggest adding this information to Content concerns -> Content censorship and moderation

“We do not permit content that contains hate speech or involves hateful behaviour, and we remove it from our platform”. TikTok consider hateful ideologies to be those that “demonstrate clear hostility toward people because of their protected attributes. Hateful ideologies are incompatible with the inclusive and supportive community that our platform provides and we remove content that promotes them”

According to the community guidelines, users cannot post, upload, stream or share:

·      Content that praises, promotes, glorifies, or supports any hateful ideology (such as white supremacy, misogyny, anti-LGBTQ or antisemitism)

·      Content that contains names, symbols, logos, flags slogans, uniforms, gestures, salutes, illustrations, portraits, songs, music, lyrics or other objects related to a hateful ideology

·      Content that denies well-documented and violent events have taken place affecting groups with protected attributes (such as Holocaust denial)

·      Claims of supremacy over a group of people with reference to other protected attributes

·      Conspiracy theories used to justify hateful ideologies.

TikTok publishes information about its content moderation, algorithms and privacy and security practices. Its transparency reports show the volume and nature of content removed for violating TikTok’s Community Guidelines or Terms of Service, and how TikTok responds to law enforcement requests for information, government requests for content removals and copyrighted content take-down notices. The company has announced Transparency and Accountability Centers in Los Angeles and Washington, D.C.

References

---

---

---

Lisa Rechelle (talk) 09:02, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I see no reason to add the first suggested paragraph as it reads like a magazine article or essay. A tidbit on the trend might be warranted if it has substantial coverage, though.

Same goes for the quote from TikTok's guidelines, which isn't exactly necessary to understand TikTok's moderation. The page was extremely bloated so I'm very hesitant to introduce more tangential information here.

This is all clearly WP:GOODFAITH but I don't think these can be added, they're not in line with Wikipedia's WP:MOS. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 15:21, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2023

Add information about influencers being able to get paid through tik tok by brands.

TikTok defines sponsored content as any video created by an individual that promotes a brand, product, or service in exchange for anything of value from a third party. This includes product or service brand endorsements, collaborations, or any other type of special marketing.

A sponsored content post might feature a product that you were given or got cash to promote. It might entail you getting a commission from a third party if other creators buy the product or service you promote. It might even be a post about a brand with which you have a business relationship, such as if you're a brand ambassador or anything similar. Lovemusic03 (talk) 05:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:37, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2023

• File:Bulleted list item

27.55.79.4 (talk) 20:28, 16 May 2023 (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. Tollens (talk) 20:43, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

WSJ article

Should probably added to the article: Former ByteDance Executive Claims Chinese Communist Party Accessed TikTok's Hong Kong User Data. 93.72.49.123 (talk) 22:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Information related to TikTok has been added. Vacosea (talk) 11:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Trying this again

The following news, from months to years ago, should be added but was blocked by an editor. Let's start with a few paragraphs with more to come; refer to the discussion at notice board for more. CurryCity (talk) 04:46, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

A1 (add under United States ban): In January 2020, the United States Army and Navy banned TikTok on government devices after the Defense Department pegged it as a security risk. Before the policy change, army recruiters had been using the platform to attract young people. Unofficial promotional videos continue to be posted on TikTok under personal accounts, drawing the ire of government officials, but they have also helped increase the number of enlistees; several accounts have millions of views and followers.

A2 (add under United States ban): Attempts to ban TikTok have also raised the question of whether protectionism of its own corporations, rather than privacy concerns, is the primary motivation of the US Government. The types of data collected by TikTok are also collected by other social media platforms and available through brokers, often without oversight. An analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies writes that it would make more sense to focus on the protection of data directly rather than on any particular platform.

A3 (add under Content censorship and moderation replacing the final paragraph of that section): Following increased scrutiny, TikTok is granting some outside experts access to the platform's anonymized data sets and protocols, including filters, keywords, criteria for heating, and source code.

References

Those generally look like reasonable changes to me. I would suggest rephrasing A3 to something like "TikTok announced that it would grant some outside experts..." to better reflect the sources, which seem to report this step with qualifications like "TikTok said" rather than as a fact. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 22:55, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I put that in with my edit. CurryCity (talk) 18:59, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

B1 (reword in Expansion in other markets) TikTok was the first non-Facebook app to reach that figure, despite Instagram spending millions on Reels as a rival product.

B2 (add to United States ban) Security experts interviewed by CNN said that speculations of threats to the United States still lack clear evidence. Some of TikTok's practices, although deplorable, are commonplace in the industry. Instead, the protection of private user data across all platforms and national boundaries should be the priority.

B3 (add to Content censorship and moderation) A March 2021 study by the Citizen Lab found that TikTok did not censor searches politically but was inconclusive about whether posts are. A 2023 paper by the Internet Governance Project at Georgia Institute of Technology found no pro-China censorship on TikTok.

B4 (remove from User privacy concerns cannot find RS) Web developers Talal Haj Bakry and Tommy Mysk said that allowing videos and other content to be shared by the app's users through HTTP puts the users' data privacy at risk.

References

B1 seems accurate but confusing as Instagram is also owned by Facebook's parent company (in the article's terminology, it is a Facebook app). Instead of this suggested change, maybe add a sentence saying something like "Despite Instagram spending millions on Reels as a rival product, Reels' viewership remained less than one tenth of TikTok's as of 2022."

I think B2 has NPOV problems. We can't label TikTok's practices as deplorable in wikivoice. I would suggest just removing the phrase "although deplorable", but if leaving it in, it needs to be clearly attributed as someone's opinion. I think the claim about what "should be the priority" should also be attributed in-text.

No objections to B3 and B4. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 00:25, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Instead of B1, I may expand a section (TBD) that compares TikTok with its competitors. For B2, after going through its source, only the following is new or different from what we already have: CNN said that TikTok's efforts to find leaks to the press may be deplorable but are hardly uncommon for public organisations. A researcher at the Citizen Lab believes governments around the world should better protect user information from being exploited by Big Tech in general, not focus on just one app without good evidence. CurryCity (talk) 19:38, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

C1 (reword Heating with more information) In January 2023, Forbes reported that a "heating" tool allows TikTok to manually promote certain videos, comprising 1-2% of daily views. The practice began as a way to grow and diversify content and influencers that were not automatically picked up by the recommendation algorithm. It was also used to promote brands, artists, and NGOs being courted by the company. However, some employees have abused it to promote their own accounts or those of their spouses, while others have felt that their guidelines leave too much room for discretion. TikTok said only a few individuals can approve heating in the U.S. and the promoted videos take up less than 0.002% of user feeds. To address concerns of Chinese influence, the company is negotiating with the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States such that future heating could only be performed by vetted security personnel in the U.S. and the process would be audited by third-parties such as Oracle.

C2 (reword paragraph under Addiction and mental health concerns with more information) Since 2021, it has been reported that accounts engaging with contents related to suicide, self-harm, or eating disorder were fed similar videos. Some users were able to circumvent TikTok filters by writing in code or using unconventional spelling. The company has faced multiple lawsuits pertaining to wrongful deaths. TikTok said it is working to break up these "rabbit holes" of similar recommendations. US searches for eating disorder receive a prompt that offers mental health resources.

C3 (remove quote under User privacy concerns undue coverage) and stating "I look at that app as so fundamentally parasitic, that it's always listening, the fingerprinting technology they use is truly terrifying, and I could not bring myself to install an app like that on my phone."

C4 (condense under one heading UK Information Commissioner's Office investigation) In February 2019, the United Kingdom's Information Commissioner's Office launched an investigation of TikTok following the fine ByteDance received from the United States Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Speaking to a parliamentary committee, Information Commissioner Elizabeth Denham said that the investigation focuses on the issues of private data collection, the kind of videos collected and shared by children online, as well as the platform's open messaging system which allows any adult to message any child. She noted that the company was potentially violating the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) which requires the company to provide different services and different protections for children.

C5 (condense under one heading Journalist spying scandal) In June 2022, BuzzFeed News reported that leaked audio recordings of internal TikTok meetings reveal employees in China had access to overseas data, including a "master admin" who could see "everything". Some of the recordings were made during consultations with Booz Allen Hamilton, a US government contractor. A spokesperson of the contractor said some of the report's information was inaccurate but would neither confirm nor deny whether TikTok was one of its clients. Following the reports, TikTok confirmed that employees in China could have access to U.S. data. It also announced that US user traffic would now be routed through Oracle Cloud and that backup copies would be deleted from other servers.

In October 2022, Forbes reported that a team at ByteDance planned to surveil certain US citizens for undisclosed reasons. TikTok said that the tracking method suggested by the report would not be feasible because precise GPS information is not collected by the platform. In December 2022, ByteDance confirmed after internal investigation that the data of several journalists had been accessed by its employees from China and the United States on an "audit" team. Their intention was to uncover sources of leaks who might have met with journalists from BuzzFeed, Forbes, and the Financial Times. The data accessed included IP addresses, which can be used to approximate a user's location. Four employees have been terminated, including the audit team's lead Chris Lepitak and his superior, executive Song Ye. ByteDance and TikTok condemned the individuals' misuse of authority. The incident is being investigated by the US Department of Justice.

References

No objections from me. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

D1 (condense into new section "Project Texas" under United States ban) TikTok has been working to silo privileged user data within the United States under oversight from the US government or a third party such as Oracle. Named Project Texas, the details are being negotiated with the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) and focus on unauthorised access, state influence, and software security. A new subsidiary, TikTok U.S. Data Security Inc. (USDS), was created to manage user data, software code, back-end systems, and content moderation. It would report to CFIUS, not ByteDance or TikTok, even for hiring pratices. Oracle would review and spot check the data flows through USDS. It would also digitally sign software code, approve updates, and oversee content moderation and recommendation. Physical locations would be established so that Oracle and the US government could conduct their own reviews.

In March 2023, a former employee of the company said Project Texas did not go far enough and that a complete "re-engineering" would be needed. TikTok responded by saying that Project Texas already is a re-engineering of the app and that the former employee left in 2022 before the project specifications were finalised.

References

Looks reasonable to me. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:59, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

For the number of languages offered by TikTok, would the Apple App store be a reliable source? CurryCity (talk) 09:13, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I think so – seems like an appropriate use of a primary source. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 02:42, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

E1 (add to User privacy concerns) A March 2021 study by the Citizen Lab found that TikTok did not collect data beyond the industry norms, what its policy stated, or without additional user permission.

E2 (new section under User privacy concerns after Europe) TikTok says it is holding discussions with UK's National Cyber Security Centre about Project Clover, a plan to store European information locally. A third party will be monitoring its servers' data flow. The company will add a second data centre to its existing one in Ireland as well as a third in Norway.

References

Overall these look fine, but I'm not sure I see support in the sources for "its existing one in Ireland". The BBC source seems to be saying that the first data center in Ireland was already announced but not that it already exists. Maybe rephrase as "The company has announced plans for two data centres in Ireland as well as a third in Norway." —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 21:05, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

You are right about the announcement versus existing. CurryCity (talk) 05:51, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2023

Hi there, this page links to https://mediakix.com/blog/top-tik-tok-statistics-demographics that doesn't exist anymore. Please change it to this brand new updated page that has a lot of TikTok stats: https://theinfluencermarketingfactory.com/top-tiktok-stats-2023/

Thank you Cuzofobim (talk) 21:24, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 11:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Barbie Botox

I think it's just a fad and not a suitable encylopaedic contents for TikTok. WP:RECENTISM and WP:NEWS This page is about TikTok, not the latest fad and such contents are undue. Do other editors feel the contents in question at Special:Diff/1176134926 should be included? courtesy ping to @Nathan121212: Graywalls (talk) 18:28, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

The inclusion of various fads under each trend heading helps to establish the existence of each larger trend. I do feel my edit is justified but I am also willing to hear other editors' opinions. Nathan121212 (talk) 18:38, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Douyin literal meaning says "vibrating sound" which is a pleonasm

According to wiktionary wiktionary:抖音 means vibrato, thus that would be an pitch oscillation, "vibrating sound" is unclear, sound IS vibration. 31.20.106.40 (talk) 20:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2023

link Zhang Yiming to the Zhang Yiming page Benniebooboo (talk) 11:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done NotAGenious (talk) 13:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Difference between TikTok and other social networks

'Content is curated by TikTok's artificial intelligence depending on the content a user liked, interacted with, or searched. This is in contrast to other social networks' algorithms basing such content off of the user's relationships with other users and what they liked or interacted with.'

How is this 'a contrast'? As far as I understand it, two of the three mentioned factors for each platform - what a user 'liked' and 'interacted with' - coincide. You have to read it more than once to figure out the only (supposed) difference, which appears to be that TikTok considers what a user 'searched', while other social networks consider 'the user's relationships with other users'. If that is true, an intelligible formulation could be something like: 'This is in contrast to other social networks' algorithms which, while also taking into account what users liked or interacted with, place more weight on the user's relationships with other users and do not consider what they searched to the same extent.' But I don't know if that's true, because the source article is behind a paywall. In particular, I doubt that other networks don't take into account what you searched for. 62.73.69.121 (talk) 10:34, 28 October 2023 (UTC)