Talk:4chan

These quotes are straight from Wikipedia:Verifiability, which is an official and founding policy of Wikipedia.

1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources. 2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor. 3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

"Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. For academic subjects, the sources should preferably be peer-reviewed. Sources should also be appropriate to the claims made: outlandish claims beg strong sources."

"The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references. If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic."

Archives

1 | 2 | 3

The meme articles on Wikiworld

This may not be related to the article, but my edit was rolled back so I figured that I'd take it here.

As you guys know, or not know, Wikiworld has threatened to delete the Meme articles because of references to sexual intercourse(with children) and such. Therefore, if we are going to still have an encyclopedia over 4chan's memes, we need to link or make another encyclopedia elsewhere. http://www.lurkmore.com/wiki/index.php?title=4chan was posted on the Meme article's talk page. I suggest that we use it instead, unless someone has objections to it.--62.249.176.102 17:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Neither really have any sort of reliability behind them, as they are both Wikis, but if the main complaint with the WikiWorld site is that they're planning on removing all of the references to child pornography, then how many 4chan memes is that? Ryūlóng 17:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Many of them. Hell, some of the memes that relate directly to child pornography shape the core of the community, whether I like to admit it or not. In my opinion, it would be best to shift focus onto the lurkmore wiki, as lurkmore will not delete such references, as lurkmore more or less sprung out of the community surrounding 4chan and as such is not shocked or made uneasy by such references. Another alternative could be the etherchan wiki. Anyway, regardless of which we use, we need to a wiki to direct people to so that they don't put them here. (Steampowered 19:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC))

Well, they finally erased everything on the WikiWorld articles. Lurkmore's chanchan wiki was originally copied from wikiworld, but has since gotten a bit larger. So, until we can find a better alternative, let's link to that chanchan article, as it's better than the old linked article at wikiworld anyway. (Steampowered 06:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)).

I don't think that any sort of linking is necessary; no matter what wiki it is on. I've removed links to self-proclaimed guides, as they are fairly useless to the content of the article. Ryūlóng 06:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I really don't see why you didn't remove the link to the WikiWorld article months ago. In my opinion, the link to an outside article is a great compromise. And to tell the truth, I didn't understand shit about 4chan until I read up on their history in the wikiworld article. Now that chanchan's wiki article is actually better and actually looks a bit more professional and even encyclopedic compared to the old wikiworld article, I don't see why their should be a reason to remove a link to this article when one just like it sat up there for months without any objections. These are actually informative sources, not just "self-proclaimed" bullshit guides, and if you want to go to 4chan and make any sense out of the visit, a look at any non-Wikipedia article like the old wikiworld one or the lurkmore guide is pretty much required. A link to an outside article adds greater depth to this topic and the education of an individual concerning this topic, and without sacrificing the integrity of the article. (Steampowered 06:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC))

I second this. It's not some fansite about 4chan stuff. It's a consise encyclopedia about 4chan. It's lack of strict moderation and polish are far outweighed by it's usefulness. 58.178.214.159 16:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Cracky-chan

Who or what is cracky chan?i only read the article on encyclopedia dramatica so to see what it actually is i wen on to this but it redirected to this and it doesnt explain what it is in the article.if anyone would be so kind to tell me what it is,it would be greatly appreciated. Dermo69

Wikiworld or wikichan would give you more information on that subject, information which will be probably be much less biased. Encyclopedia Dramatica is a joke encyclopedia. (Steampowered 23:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC))

Cracky-chan is a young girl who posted pictures of herself on the internet, and some Anonymi became obsessed with her. Vkeios 05:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

7chan is relevent to 4chan's interests

As much (I'm sure) as the users of 4chan's /b/ may dislike it, 7chan is a part of 4chan's history and, as such, needs to be included in the article. --Bkid 22:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

It does not need mentioning, just because 7chan was a refuge for all of the /b/tards who were angry at the new enforcement of rules on /b/. It does not really need mention, and has no real relevance to the article per Wikipedia's external links policy. Ryūlóng 22:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, 7chan has as much to do with 4chan as 7898chan, or AnoniB.

I don't agree. 7chan deserves mentioning.

As soon as 7chan becomes as large and as notable as 4chan, maybe it can have a reference, or if it gets any bigger, it could have an article. Until the point arrives where 7chan becomes notable, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. (Steampowered 03:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)).

I agree with Steampowered. If 7chan is mentioned in the article, then practically every other related or "spinoff" site (420chan, iichan, etc) has to be mentioned as well. Tavaryn 09:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

/b/

For the past two days, whenever I have attempted to access the /b/ board, a 404 error screen is produced; Yet I can access many (if not all) of the other boards with no restraint. Is /b/ having technical difficulties, or am I just blocked? Draculix 14:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

BT has blokced /b again since 07/11/06. People in the 4chan IRC room confirmed this for me.

Should we add a section to the article? Also, as a side note, are people campaigning to get it lifted again? (BionicSheep 22:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC))

The block is already covered in the controversy section. I hope that answers both of your questions. (Steampowered 01:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)).

The block is already covered- but in the article it says it was lifted. Now it has been re-instated. That is what should be added to the article.

There is a new block that is NOT covered in the controversy section, for a few days now there has been another active block on /b/ (currently still active) Celox 15:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I know about the new block, and I know it is not yet covered in this article. But blocks in general ARE. So, if you'd like to add information concerning this block, you should more than likely add it to the controversy section. (Steampowered 18:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)).

Side note about /b/ block

Google appears to confirm that /b/ is or was on the IWF list of banned sites. (Note that I don't mean that "some websites found by Google" - I literally mean Google itself.) Unfortunately, I doubt this meets WP:RS - then again, most of the other stuff in this article doesn't really seem to either. -- makomk 18:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd think it's pretty reliable, though it may not meet wikipedia's requirements, seeing as when you visit that link that was given on the page you linked, it shows pretty clearly that IWF was the sender, under the "Sender Information" section. I doubt that submissions can be made in somebody else's name on that website, though I don't really know at all. (Steampowered 01:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)).

New Section

I'm starting to think that /b/ should get it's own section in this article. We could move the last two paragraphs of the site description, along with information on the block of /b/ and a couple sentences at the end of the second paragraph of the memes section, and add text to link everything together. This would help this article by keeping all of the sections from drifting too much into eachother. Does anyone else think that this would help the article? (Steampowered 02:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)).

Sorta done already, I guess :P Ryūlóng 05:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The Terror Threat Incident

4chan's all over the news. I don't have the time to update the article, but if someone would like to get it underway, just type "4chan" into a google news search. StellarFury 20:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I've already taken about 10 or 20 minutes to type up a little about it. Feel free to change what I put up, but please make sure you reference whatever you put up. (Steampowered 20:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)).

Also, if anyone would like to work the actual court papers into this instead of three or four different articles, that would help the section a bit. (Steampowered 21:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)).

The whole thing ended up apparently causing the FBI to shut down 4chan. The site is dead for now. When the wiki is editable again, someone should add this.

First, new threads go a the bottom, second, 4chan is not the only site that these things were put up. Third, 4chan is only down temporarily. Probably some server issues. —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

moot put up a sticky to say that 4chan would be down while he fixed stuff. The sticky's gone now, but it seems to be more technical than anything else, though perhaps the site got a few more hits than usual with the exposure. Not worth mentioning unless you're going to do the neccessary original research.

I'm sure that the threats posted on /b/ were just "copypasta". Anonymous might be crazy, but we're not so insane we'd end the world. Quadrius 13:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Not according to the official court document. http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1020062brahm2.html Ashibaka tock 14:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, that states that several later iterations were copypasta, but he did do several threats which may have been deemed as copypasta. —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe he wrote the copypasta, and then posted it on a bunch of websites. Which was a stupid move. What happens in /b/, stays in /b/. --Wooty  Woot? | contribs 00:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Pedobear

Why is the Pedobear locked? And why there's no mention of the character in the article? I'm a fairly new user, and I'm not at all familiarized with the origins and meaning of the Pedobear, but there are mentions of the character in several posts.

Well, the general 4chan credo would be you should "lurk more," but the Pedobear article here is locked because it is unencyclopedic and more than likely deleted so many times that it had to be protected from recreation. The 4chan article also lacks an entry because it is difficult to monitor and source some of the memes that show up, and they are also unencyclopedic. If you want to look up something about Pedobear, I'm sure there's an article at Lurk More, a 4chan wiki, or at Encyclopedia Dramatica.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

But pedobear used to redirect here and that was fine too.

I see what you did there.

Downtime should be added to the article

Discuss. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nightmare X (talk • contribs) .

No, it should not. Websites go down all of the time. Just because it is 4chan doesn't make it special.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Bah, what about a "Story" section then? Nightmare X 06:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

What "Story" is there? Look at other websites' articles, and tell me what we should mention about 4chan that is not already mentioned.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Ryulong loves blanking communication on talk pages. I don't mean that just here, I've noticed him a lot blanking lots of communication on talk pages. Anomo 10:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why it should be necessary to cite major media or what have you on 4chan being down. If that were necessary for everything in the article, all it would have in it would be a blurb about the NFL bomb hoax. Kuroji 14:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I wonder how can anyone get a more reliable source than 4chan's main page itself. That's not "Original Research". You're just saying that if the media doesn't talk about something, it doesn't exist. It would be amusing to see how can someone acomplish by navigating wikipedia and removing everything not referenced on major media. Kry 17:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Because it's oh-so-important that 4chan's servers are down. Ashibaka tock 17:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It's parrt of the site's history that it has died several times already, and every time it's a more stupid reason thatn the previous one. I don't think that even a "Deaths" section would be too much for the article. Really, what's the problem with some people? Wikipedia is suposed to be a repository of information, not information that some people finds relevant. You don't care about that info, that's good, but the causal wikipedia browser might find that information interesting. Kry 17:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is suposed to be a repository of information"-- No it's not. Wikipedia is a repository of verifiable, reliably sourced facts. You want Trendpedia. Ashibaka tock 17:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to be "factual"? I thought it was supposed to be "accurate".

Verifiability, not accuracy. 4chan would say "lurk moar" and would probably throw up some complainy site like wikitruth.info, but simply WP:V is enough. Anomo 23:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Also there's nothing verifiable on why they are down. 4chan's page is vague and sort of like a joke--they may just be lying and actually upgrading like 7chan is doing. If it stays down for a month that might warrant mention, but every small outage isn't notable. Anomo 20:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Why would we lie about anything? MrVacBob 20:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick note - the box at the top of the page is a bit much. As they say on 4chan "CAPS LOCK IS CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL". I think this section of talk is fine. (too) --Transfinite 00:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Fix'd. It was an artifact from {{notaforum}}—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Came from 4chan? I've heard CAPS LOCK IS CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL lots of places. I do like that one. Anomo 04:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it came from 4chan, as do around 99% of all internet memes.--ABigBlackMan 14:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Not Something Awful? Anomo 22:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea, personally. Memes are hard to track down. --Transfinite 23:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

There's lots of spillover from 4chan and SA. However, that's neither here nor there for purposes of this discussion. Em-El 23:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that using the front page of 4chan is not original reasearch as it's using 4chan as the source. There would be nothing wrong with saying "The main page of 4chan said they forgot to pay the bills." Nevertheless, it does fall under non-notable as many websites go down. There's nothing special with this time. It's not like the FBI came and shut it down.Em-El 00:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

We can't know that for sure! 144.32.128.112 00:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

When 4chan comes back up, that source will be gone. Anyway, this is far from the first time that 4chan has gone down. --Transfinite 01:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Already gone. The site is back up with no explanation of why it was down. Anomo 08:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I hardly think two days' downtime is notable. (moot didn't pay the bandwidth bill on time and Cogent takes forever to do anything) MrVacBob 20:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

However, a story section for the site would make sense, 4chan's frontpage IS a reliable source and saying it's "OMFG ORIGINAL RASAERCH" is just plain stupid.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nightmare X (talk • contribs) .

Nightmare X, sign your posts, and read other articles on websites and tell me if what you are suggesting is necessary for 4chan's article.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Stickam

Article says: "Stickam has recently been the target of ongoing coordinated raids by the users of the /b/ forum on the image board 4chan. They have had such an impact on its development that the two most popular personal tags- phrases users can enter to connect them to other users of like interests- are "/b/" and "4chan", respectively." And there's been two edits of this so far. One is "[ you do not talk about fight club]" and the other is blaming it on YTMND/Ebaums like the Habbo raids. Anomo 22:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Ummmm?

I can only say this article seriously lacks further information regardless if you want to throw up the visitors back and forth to others sources, but that IS NOT the purpose of wikipedia, i vote for a clean up, and a bit more interesting and large abbordage of the busject!

DESU

Some one keeps spamming with DESU. Please stop now. --Trusader 19:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, this should really stop. I must really note the huge problem this article has with vandalism. 4Chan, and /b/ in particular, are too popular and have too dangerous an influence for the health of the article. Might I suggest locking or deleting the article? Medevilenemy 20:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)