That would be what Wikipedia calls "original research". A big no-no on wikipedia. At a minimum he would have to tweet or blog about it and link the tweet or blo

That would be what Wikipedia calls "original research". A big no-no on wikipedia. At a minimum he would have to tweet or blog about it and link the tweet or blog. And even then that's a primary source, which wikipedia considers less valuable. Ideally he would get someone else to report on his tweet/blog and use that as source. Then the wikipedia gods are happy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research