Talk:Lurker

This article was nominated for deletion recently. The result of the discussion was keep.

Jerry lavoie 20:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Atkinson?

The article states: "For example Christian Atkinson (Jake from holloaks) is a Lurker." As far as I can tell, this is an incredibly esoteric reference, if not blatant vandalism. Is there any reason why it should stay in this article? 4.19.111.130 19:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit

Changes

"end of sentence." >>> "end of sentence". (It looks better. Is WP brittish or american? I think it should be the language of accessable, and I say as one that mostly communicates with americans even, that I find the american way harder to read, and as mentioned in the jargon file, that it's more logical - and even required, for logical writing)
added sections
"emphasized word" >>> emphasized word (because again, having a lot of quotes makes it harder to read, and bolding obviously emphasizes)
removed dual BBS link
added 3 buts to 1st sentence (Which sounds stupid, sorry. And this is my first ~~major~~ minor edit, so hey...)

--213.64.90.59 06:08, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Smart ass lurker?

The smart ass lurker section seems unencyclopedic to me. Thoughts? --lightspeedchick 02:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, even though it's a fact worth stating. The phrase "smart ass" just seems out of place. Prgrmr@wrk 16:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, why not change it to Obnoxious Lurkers? --65.190.103.147 05:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

The recent deletion nomination (by me) resulted in several sources being named that may be of help for this article. User:Uncle G came up with ISBN 0735713332, which describes "Lurker mode" in Macromedia Flash UI components, where a user watches but does not interact; and ISBN 1852335327 which has an entire chapter, "Silent Participants: Getting to know lurkers better" on pages 110–132, on Usenet lurkers. (quoted from that user) After that I found two more sources that at least mention the term: ISBN 0634010123 and ISBN 0764544209. —Kncyu38 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neologism?

Is this appropriately tagged a neologism? I have never heard of it, but I am not a lurker either. I have done a simple search according to my proposed rule for inclusion as a neologism, see search results, and the term falls between the rules to include or remove. Under the Computing definitions, especially this one, the term has been in use for a ten years.