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.

Types of lukers

Some of the sections describing the different types of lurkers appear to be original research. Also, terms such as "Smart Ass Lurkers" and "Perverted Lurkers" sounds a bit unencyclopedic.

Yes, I added the Perverted Lurkers section. Now, I wonder if I should have put, "Sexually-Motivated Lurkers." That describes more the type of lurking as opposed to making a judgemental statement.

On Smart Ass Lurkers, maybe that should be changed to Obnoxious Lurkers or Trolling Lurkers. Or the section could be expanded a bit and retitled, Trolls As Lurkers.

The Starcraft Lurker is not relevant to the type of lurking described here. Maybe there needs to be a disambiguation page.--65.190.103.147 16:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]