Jump to content

Talk:Social media influencer

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Influencer)


Definition of influencer

[edit]

Here is a description of influencer I would use for a page. I wanted to stay away from dictionary definitions. I'll keep reading up on this. Nnev66 (talk) 21:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Influencers are opinion leaders who independently shape audience attitudes through content like blogs, tweets, and other social media posts. Unlike traditional endorsers, influencers are perceived as more authentic and credible because they build trust by positioning themselves as experts in specific niches. They interact closely with their followers, fostering a sense of familiarity and forming what is known as a para-social relationship, which makes their recommendations more persuasive.[1] Nnev66 (talk) 21:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the article today with a different but related definition for influencer/social media influencer. Was hoping to have a more expansive one rather than a dictionary-style one, but if the consensus is to go with shorter we can leave it at that and return to it later. Nnev66 (talk) 03:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Johne, Jane (2023). "Introduction". Effectiveness of Influencer Marketing. Springer Gabler. doi:10.1007/978-3-658-41297-5.

Did you know nomination

[edit]

(
)
Cavinder Twins in action
Cavinder Twins in action
Adrien Nunez as a basketball player
Adrien Nunez as a basketball player
Moved to mainspace by TonyTheTiger (talk). Number of QPQs required: 2. DYK is currently in unreviewed backlog mode and nominator has 369 past nominations.

TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Article name

[edit]

I saw the “Influencer” page was moved to ”Social media influencer” by InfiniteNexus who also changed the opening sentence to start with "A social media influencer,..." instead of "An influencer,...". The page was then moved back to "Influencer" by Polyamorph and moved again by request to ”Social media influencer”; I asked why it kept changing and it's been moved back again to "Influencer".

Below is a list of opening sentences for the article.

  • Original (by TonyTheTiger): Influencer is a term traditionally associated with someone who influences others using inspiration and guidance, however, more recently the term has been associated specifically with people who influence and guide the interest of others using social media (also referred to as a social media influencer).
  • Changed to this (by CommunityNotesContributor): An influencer, also referred to as a social media influencer, is a term traditionally associated with someone who influences others using inspiration and guidance.
  • A more recent variation (also by CommunityNotesContributor): An influencer, also referred to as an online influencer, social media influencer, or social media personality, is a term traditionally associated with someone who is considered influential.
  • Most recent (by InfiniteNexus): A social media influencer, or simply influencer, is a type of Internet celebrity who is influential and well-known on social media.

I think the article name “Influencer” makes more sense as "Social media influencer" is a subset of this term. Also, I think the opening sentence should begin with "An influencer,..." (perhaps the most recent version using this structure) to be consistent with an article name of "Influencer". Can this please be discussed to see if consensus can be reached? Nnev66 (talk) 23:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nnev66: Happy New Year, and thanks for starting this discussion. Looking at the page history, it looks like Polyamorph reverted my BOLD move at Jack Lennon Robbinson's request, but then this was re-reverted by CFA because JLR was a sockpuppet, and then again reverted by CFA following your request on their talk page. Although it was within your and JLR's rights to request that my BOLD move be reverted per WP:BOLDMOVE, "undiscussed move" is not a valid rationale per WP:BOLD, WP:IMPLICIT, and WP:CCC, as it does not say anything about why this title is problematic and consensus is not permanent. I invite you to share your reasons if you believe influencer is a better title. Both you and JLR cited past discussion in support of "Influencer" as the page title, but I see no record of this on this page; could you point me to that discussion?
In any case, I stand by the rationale I cited for my initial move to "Social media influencer": influencer, in the context of this article, is merely a shortened form of social media influencer, similar to how a pickup truck is sometimes shortened to truck or the World Wide Web is often shortened to web. By itself, influencer is a generic term that simply means "a person or thing that influences another", and the term is also used in marketing to mean something else entirely. A social media influencer is a specific type of influencer that this article exclusively covers, and just because some have taken to using influencer for short doesn't mean this is the more formal and accurate term. For example, we still use disc jockey rather than its less formal but arguably more "popular" short form, DJ.
I am happy to open a formal WP:RM if need be, but I hope this can be speedily resolved through this discussion. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:32, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I concur that the proper page name is more likely the long form for the subject of this page. We are not really talking about people who use their name, image and likeness to endorse over the radio, on TV, in print or other manner/media with this article.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @InfiniteNexus: for explaining why you wanted the page moved to "Social media influencer". I hadn't realized the page was mostly about SMIs. I still prefer "Influencer" as I see the term more as described in the Definition section, but if you and the authors of the article prefer "Social media influencer" I won't object now that I better understand your rationale. Note I don't like the article's introductory sentence so when I have time I plan to work on revising it and adding to the article. I'll try to do things in chunks that can be easily reverted if there's disagreement. Nnev66 (talk) 20:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Nnev66, if you intend to make significant changes to the WP:LEAD, please try to do so with haste. This page was originally scheduled to make a main page appearance in WP:DYK on January 7. I asked for a slight delay because the page name and contents seem to be getting discrepant reactions. I am hoping to have interested parties resolve conflict so that people protecting the page will know what they are suppose to be protecting. Since Queue 3 has places that remain open, it may be put back in that slot for January 7 if things seem to settle down contentwise. Thus, it would be best if you tried to make LEAD changes sooner rather than later.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I expanded the lead sentence of "social media influencer". If you don't like this sentence feel free to revert, and I won't edit the article for a couple of weeks until it clears DYK. Nnev66 (talk) 03:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Nnev66, I must say that I chuckled to look at your User page talking about working on female scientists and rabbis and finding you here cleaning up Influencer. I am looking for content in the article about female scientist and rabbi influencers:-! The WP:LEAD is now a total mess in the sense that it is in no way a summary of the article. At the DYK stage, it is of course not important to have an exemplary article and we are just trying to get things ready for a main page appearance at DYK. However, a LEAD is suppose to be a summary of the article. Nothing should be mentioned in the lead that does not have greater or equal detail in the main body of the article. Right now the LEAD has a lot of stuff that is not mentioned anywhere else, which means that stuff should be moved to the main body with at least as much detail if not more. Some of this is my fault and preexists your involvement. However, you added to the issue.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
:) I’ve been participating in AfD’s the past six months and the term “influencer” keeps coming up so I went down a rabbit hole. In August I’d planned to work on it but I had other pages more in my interest area. I think my lead sentence is better but if you want to revert it that’s fine for now. I can come back to this after the DYK as I’d like to add to the body as well while trying to keep everything coherent. Nnev66 (talk) 14:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved it back per the consensus here. Future move requests should be handled through WP:RM. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @CFA, Polyamorph, and Jack Lennon Robbinson:, I would just like to make sure all editors who have been involved in the page moves forth and back and forth are on board with this page name. P.S. it seems that WP:SPA Jack Lennon Robinson has bee blocked and locked.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:28, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment not sure why I didn't receive any notification of the page move drama here. Thanks TonyTheTiger for the recent ping which I did receive. I moved the page following a request at WP:RM/TR as an undiscussed move. If a bold undiscussed page move is contested, then the page should revert back to its original name and a formal WP:RM should opened, as detailed at WP:RM:

    Requests to revert recent, undiscussed, controversial moves may be made at WP:RM/TR. If the new name has not become the stable title, the undiscussed move will be reverted. If the new name has become the stable title, a requested move will be needed to determine the article's proper location.

    It is highly disruptive to move the page back and forth without discussion. Next time, if your move is contested, open a flippin' RM and do not engage in a move revert war. Polyamorph (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've stayed out of this mini-drama, but just to say per above, I agree this would be better done as an RM. This is flimsy consensus to move the page again after bold move was contested and reverted per WP:BCR. CNC (talk) 18:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    User:CommunityNotesContributor, What is WP:BCR?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:27, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Bold, contested, revert. CNC (talk) 19:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Polyamorph: and @CommunityNotesContributor:, please give me advice on where we go from here. This page is nominated for a main page appearance via WP:DYK. Since it was nominated based on a December 2 move to article space, we kind of have until about the beginning of February before all issues have to be resolved for the nomination to proceed in good faith. Thus, any process that is likely to be resolved in less than 3 weeks would not interfere with a DYK nomination. Would a more robust page name discussion be advised and would it likely be resolved in less than 3 weeks.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    RM can easily be resolved in a week per minimum time-frame for discussion. CNC (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, it needs a formal WP:RM, there is no clear consensus. Although for that, the page should really go back to its original location first. @Amakuru and Robertsky: Pinging a couple of admins at WP:RM for their expert input. Polyamorph (talk) 19:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Although I created the page at Influencer, I would support the move to this name. However, my objective is to find the most correct name. If an RM is proper to achieve that, then move the page to where it needs to be so that the RM can commence.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the thing, I wouldn't unless there was considerable support for such a move. CNC (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:IAR could be sensible here, but it's messy, which is why we have rules and procedures for such things. I don't intend to weigh in any further than this, hopefully one of the aforementioned admins will be able to help resolve this. Polyamorph (talk) 20:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    IAR only really applies to bold moves, not move cycles like bold, contested, revert. CNC (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Student athletes section

[edit]

@Thenewwave: You reverted, so per BRD I guess let's talk about this out here. I don't have a huge stake in whether the article mentions the section or not, but I'm puzzled as to why it should stay in when the cited source doesn't verify half the content or even explain why student athletes are relevant to this topic. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:05, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

user:theleekycauldron, I just added some sourced content.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the new content! However, it doesn't really fix the problems with the original content, and also, I'm not quite sure how one can use the name, image and likelness [sic] of their personal brand as influencers? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
user:theleekycauldron, First off, I have fixed the typo. Thx for noticing and pointing it out. Secondly, you have just prompted me to read Personal branding. Let me absorb this and consider how to address your concerns. Would you care to chime in at WT:DYK whether this page should maintain its current slotting to run on the main page in 3 days or whether we should ask for it to be pulled for a week as I have requested. As experienced as I am at DYK, I rarely am involved in content discrepancies in the final days before a DYK run and you may have a different perspective than me on this issue.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:59, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first of the four citations I added says: "college athletes can now earn money from sponsorship or public appearance". For starters, I read sponsorship to mean influencer for hire. Further, it is the name, image and likeness that is being transacted for.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand personal brand to be the strategy behind the way one presents one's name, image and likeness. For example, Nunez' brand is humorous and carefree, often presented in the context of hip music with in scenarios that sometime involve dancing. His brand is also conscious of the confusion involved in interpreting how perceptions of actions are interpretted in the context of a significant relationship. His brand is also fashion conscious. Other celebrity endorsers might decide that their personal brand presents name, image and likeness in contexts that focus on fast cars, makeup, fashion accessories, modern technology, family, home decor, sporting activity or whatever.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:40, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
user:theleekycauldron, I see that you did remove this from the January 7/Queue3/Prep3 position. I am certainly open to any thoughts regarding my interpretation of sources and the content that is included. Feel free to speak up if I am not thinking clearly or seem to just be wrong.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have just swapped in better sources for Nunez, that address your points a little more clearly.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:53, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
user:theleekycauldron, Although I don't think it should be required for DYK, I am wondering if you want to comment with any suggested wording change. Maybe I need to change a proposition or something minor.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, may take me a bit to respond here, but have read :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I only reverted due to a new account reverting with no edit summary (which is rarely ever a good revert). I've since read WP:BRANDNEW, and am not invested in the content after helping to assemble this misshapen article. CNC (talk) 18:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Social_media_influencer&oldid=1267469837"