Talk:4chan

4chans Latest Fact

/b/oxxy for queen!

Rickroll origin correction

The term "duck" was not wordfiltered from "egg", it was wordfiltered from "loli". I remember this very clearly, I even have some of the dumb photoshops that were made from that era. I even checked to make sure, and I couldn't find anything pre-2008 that shows that "egg" wordfiltered to "duck" in 2005. A popular meme from that time was "is this loli?", which turned into "is this duck?" (google for '"is this duck?' 4chan' and you'll spot plenty of references pre-2008). The duckroll was the result of people claiming there was a "hot duck thread", which was the duckroll. Duck replaced the former "loli" wordfilter, which was "Thomas Jefferson". I have no idea where "egg" came from, but I'd guess it's to disassociate themselves from lolicon, keeping the advertisers happy, or that they don't want to acknowledge that one of the most popular internet memes originated from a lolicon joke. Even a simple google for "4chan wordfilters" will bring up old discussion threads detailing the wordfilters of the past. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.20.169.146 (talk) 08:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Citations/Sources

There are quite a few news articles about 4chan, but certain cultural contributions such as lolcats and so forth could use further research to find sources. I put the template indicating that the article requires additional references. Thanks for understanding, I hope there is a way to confirm the start of trends here, maybe with the archive.org Wayback Machine or a similar site. natezomby (talk)

I'm confused. What, exactly, isn't sourced? —Giggy 02:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

"certain cultural contributions" (e.g. lolcats) being cited as originating on 4chan are not sourced, how do we know where memes actually originated without doing original research? Internet memes make the rounds on the usual internet forums (like SomethingAwful, Fark, multiple different chans, IRC chat rooms) so fast that I would think saying they originated somewhere would require a citation. I understand most wiki editors on this page are probably 4channers (myself being one by coincidence) but we are Wikipedians first. natezomby (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 07:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• That looks shopped. I know this because the shadows are all wrong and from having seen a few shops in my day. Protonk (talk) 05:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

moot's name

It should probably be mentioned that moot's real "Real" name is apparently Robert Bopkins. There's an image of him at some convention and that's the name on his nametag. Also, the Christopher Poole pseudonym is probably a play on the initials for Child pornography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.187.194.74 (talk) 11:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Robert Bopkins was a prank for April Fool's Day years ago, in which he posted images from a man who all we know as mootxico.--Execoot (talk) 22:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

A further note on this topic: I understand if moot chooses not to capitalize moot into Moot, but when it is at the beginning of a sentence, isn't it just proper grammar to capitalize it? Furthermore, half the titles in this article aren't capitalized either. Is this intentional or negligence? Tyciol (talk) 05:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that moot should never be capitalised. I've fixed up some of the headers though, you were correct on that count. Giggy (talk) 07:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Down again

DNS problems this time, according to the status page. 4chan has had a lot of technical problems the past month.--Ryudo (talk) 07:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The Melbourne link I think is incorrect and should be Melbourne Florida, not Melbourne Australia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.162.71 (talk) 11:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It's correct, read the references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.75.8 (talk) 13:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

lolcats

They didn't start on 4chan, they've been around basically since the beginning of the internet. --76.25.197.215 (talk) 23:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. Check references.Gravelz (talk)

The whole "lolcat" phenomom as we know it did start as "Caturday" on 4chan. Though I did read on Shii's site that it may go back further than that and may have had it's start in Japan. This would probably be very likely as the idea of 4chan came from 2chan anyway. If there is any references that someone can find... Zylo-86 (talk) 03:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Some argue that it was invented over 9000 years ago.--98.199.206.122 (talk) 00:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

You just failed so hard there isn't a face palm powerful enough. 4chan did not make lolcats, it was bastardized to lolcats. Cats were posted on the chans, notably on caturday. Then the fags on icanhazcheeseburger fucked it up. -Unsigned

Deginatley. The same thing happened to Rick Rolling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.39.34 (talk) 02:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

This is, in fact, exactly what happens when rules 1 & 2 are broken. For 4chan, all publicity is BAD publicity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.75.120 (talk) 23:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Walmart raid

Should anything be said about this? Gravelz (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Editing meme

The mudkipz explanation is killing me, we can at least make it right —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonaturservice (talk • contribs) 06:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC) Oh, thank you man. Especially when they cited Times Online and said that EncyclopediaDramatica INVENTS 1337speak...who wrote that on, ED DOCUMENTS it, not INVENTS it. I put in some comments about it.. -Warsie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.9.155 (talk) 21:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Wording

"It has also received media attention for its attacks against other websites and Internet users" The site is merely an imageboard. If we start saying that "4chan" attacks websites then could we not also say that it distrubtes child pornography or distributes far-right (and far-left) propaganda? Oursroute (talk) 23:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has received media attention for the Benoit incident. If we say it propagates such than can we not also say that it blocks paedophiles and distributes far left (and far-right) propaganda, even unintentionally? -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Bodging WP edit by edit)} 23:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

In that case, Facebook (unintentionally) distributes propaganda and even encourages anorexia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oursroute (talk • contribs) 20:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

And MySpace distributes propaganda and even encourages pseudo-Asperger's. The fact of the matter is, unless there's actual press about the propaganda and other stuff, we can't add it. This whole back and forth, while slightly tangental, is all just accusation. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Ed, a cafe facade!)} 22:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Pekka-Eric Auvinen

Review this source for notability. http://www.nolanchart.com/article4803.html It says Pekka-Eric Auvinen also posted one of his threats for the Jokela school shooting on 4chan. --William Ortiz (talk) 22:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin's email

Aparently 4chan got some press (not much, less than a paragraph) in Slate. They even linked directly to /b/. I don't think 1 throwaway "Explainer" column is enough to merit a section yet, but something else will come up mentioning it. Protonk (talk) 03:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I think a shitload more info will be needed, and a new section should be added. Just look at the 500 articles in the past four hours about this incident. I haven't looked through all of it, but out of those 500, publications like Time and many others have mentioned 4chan by name. More will surely follow, and articles focusing more closely on 4chan seem inevitable. (Steampowered (talk) 04:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)).

I have a Google Alert running on "4chan" in Google News (dedication :P). Some reliable sources that popped through that (as well as the multitude of blogs... I may have accidentally skipped over some RS in the process, sorry if so) include [1], [2], and [3], as well as Gawker controversially publishing the email screenshots. Plenty more out there I'm sure. Giggy (talk) 07:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

BBC News. Ottre 14:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It was hacked on Tues the 16th, not thurs the 18th 68.185.167.117 (talk) 18:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

More sources that 4chan's /b/ was involved in the attack: PC Magazine and Wired. The Wired article in particular gives good info. 128.147.28.1 (talk) 20:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Holy crap, 16 (another came through WHILE I TYPED!) Google Alerts emails on this... on average, 2/3 news stories on each. I don't have the time to sift through them all now, but if there is something important that we've missed in the article (I went through and added an initial dump of content yesterday) then please add it in... I'll sort it when I'm next online. Giggy (talk) 22:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• So who's gonna write it? DrinkThineCookies (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC).

I found a LATimes source related to this. It also claims that "4chan.org, the hormonal birthplace of Web pranks designed to get a rise out normal Web folks, conveniently drops all discussion threads older than a few minutes." If that's true, it probably deserves a mention somewhere in the article. Superm401 - Talk 23:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It's more like several hours (unless they are randomly deleted), though some appear on the archive later on. Giggy (talk) 23:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

That depends on the thread creation rate on the board... /b/ holds 11 pages of 15 threads each, the other image boards 11 pages of 10 threads each, and threads, including images and posts, are deleted when "pushed off" the last page - on /b/ this happens when a thread hasn't been active for a few minutes, but on other boards, this can take several hours. MathiasRav (talk) 11:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Oprah death hoax

Should this be added into the article? DrinkThineCookies (talk) 14:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Give it a few days, see how big it gets. Ideally we wouldn't include every prank that gets a mention on Wikinews. Giggy (talk) 00:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Relationship of 4chan to Anonymous

An editor has raised a concern that no cited reference links 4chan on anonymous. I don't want to revert the removal of the reference again so I'm inviting everyone to talk it over here. I know for a fact that Dibbell notes the connection between 4chan and Anon but I'm sure other sources do to. Protonk (talk) 03:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The connection is discussed a good deal in its section. Giggy (talk) 04:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

That's what I figured. I just didn't want to edit war over it. Thanks. Protonk (talk) 04:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I only noticed this discussion after I reverted... sorry about that. Giggy (talk) 04:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Featured?

I don't know if 4chan could be, you know, recommended to anyone really... or why an article about it should be "featured". The article itself is a bunch of inside jokes and mostly serves to show that there's a substantial intersection set of wikipedians and /b/tards (sheesh)... --Sigmundur (talk) 11:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, whatever. Conspiracy theories aside, take a look at Wikipedia:Featured articles. Chances are you've misunderstood what being featured actually means. Don't worry, you're not the first one. Giggy (talk) 12:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Notability or the, eh, 'correctness' of the article's subject are outside the FA criteria. There is worse topics and people than this featured, believe me. Ceoil ^sláinte 13:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I would like to commend the Epic-ness of getting the 4chan article to Featured. I thought i wouldn't see that in my lifetime. Anyone crying Rules 1 and 2. Um, this article is not a raid. :D KyuuA4 (talk) 19:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The "rules" were created by members of Gaia Online, they don't apply to 4chan, or anyone else, unless you think 4chan is some sort of seeekrut club gaiz. --Opacic (talk) 15:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Wait, this is serious? PARTAY! Pacific Coast Highway ^{{talk • contribs}} 00:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Tokio Hotel raid

It looks like the Rickroll fans have not only continued to vote for Rick Astley as EMA's best act ever but also raided Tokio Hotel forums and DDoS attacks on fan sites ([4]). Does anyone have thoughts on this?

I'm finding a lot of this on you tube and it was funny for about a second; but old now....Not a good meme. He's so kitch, its just boring. Ceoil ^sláinte 22:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Shoop Da Whoop

How is there not at least a Shoop Da Whoop article, if not an entire page dedicated to it? Surely it's one of the more well known memes, and I think it deserves a mention. I'm too much of a /b/tard to write enough about it, but I call on others to heed my plea. The world needs to know of Da Shoop's origins! Mokushiroku no Yami (talk) 17:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not your personal army? Protonk (talk) 17:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, lazers can only be charged and fired through the use of reliable sources. If you find some that relate this meme to 4chan, please feel free to shout "is dat some RS!" and add them to the article. Kthxbai. Giggy (talk) 06:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

In fact, that article has already been deleted over 9,000 times. Protonk (talk) 06:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Over 9000!?!?!?!?!?! Giggy (talk) 06:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Misguiding

Someone keeps deleting this from the talk page. I say ban him. Here's what I wrote: I find it highly disturbing that this article fails to even mention that 4chan is a network of/meeting place for pedofiles, rapists and murderers. You wouldn't create the article about Hitler without mentioning that he was a nazi. This article is obviously written by people who condone with such terrible things, and tries to keep it hidden from the public what the site actually is. One who reads this article will get the impresion that it's just a regular harmless discussion board--DnivyØ (talk) 19:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Hitler's nazism has been mentioned in reliable sources; has the same been done for the claims you make? Giggy (talk) 08:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no tolerance for trolls here. If you continue disrupting the editing process, you will be blocked. Ottre 19:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a troll. You're a troll for removing it.--DnivyØ (talk) 13:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

You might not have meant it, but this edit struck out Giggy's text above. Please don't do that except in extreme circumstances. Thanks. Protonk (talk) 19:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Why didn't you correct me? Ottre 19:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I did, sort of. I just didn't know if you to comment out the first post and not the second. figured it was better just to ask. Protonk (talk) 20:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Removed more vandalism from DnivyØ. Allegations of Paedophilia against an imageboard are serious business, and without a source it cannot be considered good practice to continue to state it. JustIgnoreMe (talk) 19:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Not realizing the difference between paedophilia (a sexual orientation / mental illness, call it what you want as there is no difference and one is just an euphemism for the other), and child rape (either active paedophilia or what is called as 'opportunity rape', not all child rapists are paedophiles, far from that, children are just an easy target you know) for an editor of an encyclopaedia is of similar magnitude.

The concept of 'bisexuality' stretches just as well to age as to gender by the way. What am I for being able to like sentient beings of any gender, age, computer programs, aliens, Sarah Kerrigan after she was Zerged? The Borg Queen? Rajakhr (talk) 21:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

O RLY happened before lolcats did

lolcats were about late 2006 early 2007. O RLY had been in circulation before then. I never remember Caturday always involving cats as image macros. Caturday was just image floods of cats (in an attempt to emulate the "cats" board on 2chan). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.12.58.68 (talk) 13:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

So I herd u liek mudkips

Didn't that little meme origionate on deviantart in the first place? after there april fools joke of changing everyones icon to a small 50x50 of a mudkip and the caption "so I herd u liek mudkips"? Sp!der (talk) 12:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it didn't. That meme has been around for years before that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.93.90 (talk) 23:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Everyone asking where memes come from should gb2/ED —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.80.146 (talk) 23:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Sp!der is correct it's from D-ART, but wrong in that it originated with the All-Fools' Day joke when I firsst got involved with the SIHULM trolling in 2007. See Talk:Mudkip/Archive02. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 08:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Add this to keep it FA standard

Articles like this should be kept up to date to remain FA. So before I list this at FAR.

• http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10058410-93.html
• http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/04/AR2008100400180.html
• http://voices.allthingsd.com/20081003/citizen-journalism-not-a-failure-blogs-a-failure/
• http://www.pocket-lint.co.uk/news/news.phtml/18189/19213/view.phtml
• http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2008/10/25/sources-sec-identifies-steve-jobs-heart-attack-prankster
• http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2008/10/06/sec-investigating-last-weeks-steve-jobs-heart-attack-rumor
• http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2008/10/03/friday-apple-links-steve-jobs-still-not-dead
• http://www.techzine.nl/nieuws/18211/Hartaanval-Steve-Jobs-was-een-flauwe-grap.html (dutch)
• http://news.cnyes.com/stock/dspnewsS.asp?fi=\NEWSBASE\20081006\WEB1988&vi=34080 (taiwanese)

It may not require a new section but should probably be mentioned.--Otterathome (talk) 17:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• ...Be bold? I don't want to sound like a jerk, but I'd be pretty upset if you listed this at FAR just for not including the Jobs bit. Thanks for collecting those sources. Someone will add that section at some point. IMO, an FAR for an article being out of date is more appropriate for something years out of date, rather than months out of date. Protonk (talk) 17:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

It provides an additional incentive.--Otterathome (talk) 17:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

What does, this ultimatum? What stops you from writing the section? Or, more importantly, what stops you from requesting an FAR? If you think that there are actionable reasons why this article isn't an example of wikipedia's best work, then by all means, start that process. If, on the other hand, you have some new content you would like added to the article, threatening an FAR isn't really the best way to convince people to work collaboratively with you. Protonk (talk) 17:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't add this in because when I first heard about it I doubted it would be a big deal. Seems there's more out there than I thought. You're welcome to add then content in, else I'll get around to it when I have a bit of time on my hands. Giggy (talk) 07:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, isn't there a three-month grace period between passing FAC and being eligible for listing at FAR? WesleyDodds (talk) 08:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

There's very little coverage of 4chan here, but I have added a line nevertheless. Skomorokh 20:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Another source, from NY Times Malwebolence. The trolls among us --Enric Naval (talk) 02:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Iw link fi from fi:Kuvafoorumi#4chan to fi:4chan

Could someone please do that. Prepost (talk) 14:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done.--Otterathome (talk) 16:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Futaba Channel (http://www.2chan.net)

Futaba Channel has been nominated for deletion. A suggestion has been made at the deletion page for it to be merged here. 76.66.195.159 (talk) 03:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Puzzled

I don't understand how the 4chan site works and this article didn't make it any clearer. Why would anyone want to contribute to a site that only retains the contributions for 24 hours? How can they follow threads when they expire so fast? How do they keep track of what's read, like on a normal bulletin board or forum system? Do people use something else than a web browser to read it? It seems completely different from anything else, and the differences should be mentioned in the article. --94.192.125.169 (talk) 00:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not really a contribution, it is weak and temporary entertainment. The site is not serious and should never ever be taken seriously (alot of abuse, racism, sexism etc takes place there and is far from serious but rather bawdy humor) And to answer your question on keeping track of whats posted and read; It isn't. 4chan is anonymous plain and simple. 58.107.55.202 (talk) 11:46, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Think of it as instant messaging with pictures. That's all. A popular imageboard is basically a cross between a forum and instant messaging, although less popular imageboards tend to have the content stay around for more than a day, possibly a week or more. It's a website, you don't need anything other than a browser to use it. If you want stuff to stay around, you have to rely on the users themselves. Posts that become popular are often replicated by way of "copypasta," meaning something that is copied and pasted. A pun of copy+paste and pasta. Images that become popular are often saved and reposted by regulars, as well. Basically, it's a community where the popularity of contributions in the minds of the users makes them last, rather than any other factor. 124.180.117.57 (talk) 00:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

This article says 4chan is an imageboard website, which according to that article is an Internet forum. Neither really talks about archival, except when related to gravedigging trolls, implying that old threads are still available. I for one have never used any other forum where content older than 24 hours was not available, so I don't think 4chan or maybe imageboards in general are common forums in that sense. It indeed looks like the people frequenting the 4chan site are doing the machine work themselves. The so called copypasta isn't from any archives but from the users themselves; they keep reposting the same content over and over again, especially on the requests board and in all "sauce" threads. On any other forum reposts would quickly be directed to the previous threads, centralising the knowledge or whatever there. On imageboards known images could easily be compared by a computer to find existing discussion. This is an interesting use of human power for that purpose, and there must be other reasons not to keep the old content. Either way, it should be mentioned in the article. --Anonymous 01:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.216.8 (talk)

The reason is simple, and the source is some blog post of moot's: On /b/, several hundred thousands posts are made every day, which means no one but Google would have any hopes of storing that long-term. MathiasRav (talk) 12:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous running gag

"a running gag on 4chan holds that Anonymous is not a single person but a collective (hive) of users.[16]"

This line wrong, it should be the other way around. Anonymous is a collection of users, thousands of them. The running gag is that anonymous is one person and all posts made my "anonymous" are made by this person. 124.180.222.98 (talk) 23:34, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

A collection is not the same as a collective. Shii (tock) 23:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

You're right, my mistake there, but I don't think this changes anything. The article makes it sound like anonymous is normally believed to be one person. The reference cited, http://www.4chan.org/faq#anonymous, says this: "He [anonymous] is a god amongst men. Anonymous invented the moon, assassinated former President David Palmer, and is also harder than the hardest metal known to man: diamond. His power level is rumored to be over nine thousand. He currently resides with his auntie and uncle in a town called Bel-Air (however, he is West Philadelphia born and raised). He does not forgive." Anonymous is literally a collective hive, while this segment shows the running gag referencing anonymous as one man and poser. 124.180.222.98 (talk) 07:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with 124.180.222.98, as anonymous is clearly not a single person. However, I would point out that the other way around is also untrue, since anonymous is widely acknowledged as a collective. In fact, as the quote 124 mentions is immediately preceded by "Anonymous is not a single person, but rather, represents the collective whole of 4chan." I suggest that the line should be deleted entirely. --TruthfulCynic 01:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Trolls

"They are often referred to by outsiders as trolls"

Change trolls to: newfags

A troll means that it has been posted before. The term is always thought to mean something vauge, and most people can't actually define a "troll"

And newfags explains itself.

That's not what a troll is at all. "Copypasta" is something posted before, a "troll" is someone who posts falsely simply to stir up things, like "flame-baiting." A troll might post very obnoxiously and claim to be underage or something like that just to get a rise out of you. This term isn't exclusive to 4chan, either. It's used on English boards everywhere. 124.180.49.127 (talk) 06:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Internet Rules and 4chan

Why is there a wiki page on 4chan? (edit: Rules are do not talk about /b/, not 4chan in general Rules 1 & 2:

1. You do not talk about /B/
2. You DO NOT TALK ABOUT /B/

lets get this cleaned up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mastercharlz (talk • contribs) 20:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

1) Wikipedia is not subject to 4chan OR /b/.

2()Wikipedia is not a Fight Club.

Slot off; every time someone brings these "rules" up they collide with WP:NOTCENSORED and are borderline trolling besides. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 04:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

And actually, even if 4chan was fight club, those rules would apply to 4chan or fight club, and in no way to wikipedia. Anyway, those rules were broken hundreds of time so there is no real need to rewrite them over 9000 times. 86.197.57.147 (talk) 08:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

"A corruption of LOL"

Greetings. While reading the article on 4chan.org, I saw a sentence which is used a lot to make fun of Fox channels, which is "Lulz, a corruption of lol". I'm not quite sure this source can be used on an encyclopedical article, as a lot of the information provided during this so-called investigation was proven false or over-exxagerated (for example, they show an image of a van exploding, claiming 4chan users did that. Problem is, they never did, and a little "demonstration" is shown in the corner of the screen. A lot of things are unrelated to 4chan, and extremely ridiculous. Some quotes, such as "Hackers on steroids" (?!) or "an underground hacker secret website" (4chan is public), make it, actually, "lulzable". Lulz is the plural form of "lol", as it comes from an old forum where people tried to find plural forms for various internet-wide used words. I'll try to find the original post if the forum still exists. To finish with, Encyclopaedia Dramatica, which was taken as a source and qualifies the /b/ board as "the asshole of the internet", have a whole article about this Fox News investigation ( search the site, article HACKERS_ON_STEROIDS ).

Therefore, I think we can not use Fox News quotes as a reliable source for wikipedia, as their own sources are extremely doubtful (no real government investigation, no official document, ... Only one person pretending to be "an anonymous", a man who bought a dog, nothing wikipedia would normally use as a reliable source.) Thanks.86.197.57.147 (talk) 07:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

As much errors as they made, Fixed Noise is still considered a reliable source per Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Also, the Fox report was not about 4chan but about Anonymous; 4chan is associated with them. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 04:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. I'm actually not discussing if Fawkes News is a reliable source, but if the investigation is reliable. Problem is citation, I guess. Wikipedia would never use a source such as "A random myspace user", or "A grandmother". Would you write "< ref>My grandmother and her neighbour</ ref> ? Wikipedia requires 3rd and objective sources. Unfortunately, this particular investigation, and not all Fox News, does not meet those criterias, as their sources are definately not third party, nor reliable. Once more, an impressive number of inconsistencies sprinkle this investigation.

If Fox News used reliable sources, there would not be any problem, but to be honest, this looks more like a show to frighten grannies than an interesting and objective investigation about this "anonymous" phenomenon (clear signs can be spotted easily : use of violent images which are quite unrelated (exploding van, they never said who did it or who threatened to do it, it's just plain unrelated violence), use of violent words out of any context ("destroy, die, attack" at the beginning. Those words are not in a sentence, and not related to the following sentences), ... Michael Moore would probably have used it for Bowling for Columbine (unfortunately, it was too late). Once more, I do not defend "hackers on steroids" (sic), I just think that this particular investigation is an unreliable source which does not meet encyclopedic criterias. (I do apologize for the bad bad english, it's late in the night here)86.197.57.147 (talk) 07:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Show evidence that they cocked up their research or that the piece is deliberately meant to be tabloidy, and maybe, maybe, you would have a case at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Until then, I'm afraid that the Faux Nuts report remains because all you're giving so far is feelings. Sorry, chummer, and null persp about the spelling and grammar. :( -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 10:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Protection

Just a note - given this, this article should absolutely not be unprotected while it's on the main page. In fact, it might be worth increasing it from semi to full protection. Raul654 (talk) 07:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It is a good idea indeed, I watched closely this /b/ thread and even if there won't be any coordinated attack (/b/ is chaos as a concept), we will see this article edited unproperly or flooded with... Well, we don't want to know.86.197.57.147 (talk) 08:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

There might be some issues with that. I think you may want to take it up to AN/I while there's still time, Raul. Nevermind, I've done so. (Addendum @ 10:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)) -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 10:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Off featured article list

4chan's gonna be flooded with gore, loli, shota, guro, cp and lots of anti-newfag faggotry. Do we want people seeing it? Oh, also, inb4 conspiracy to ddos wikipedia