Talk:Habbo

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

The infamous Habbo Raid

This section is an attempt for a renewed, serious discussion on the habbo raid. The main arguments against including it seem to be the following: Firstly, it does not meet the Wikipedia:Verifiability standards. Secondly, it is not notable enough, and should therefore not be included in an encyclopedia. Now let's see...

·The fact that there was a raid is hardly disputable. In fact, here's a video of it: http://youtube.com/watch?v=ipACsinKe0Y. Various other videos exist on YouTube with the famous raid, and also other smaller ones. Therefore, the event is perfectly verifiable and is not a result of original research. Okay.

·I don't think one can rightfully argue that the event is not big enough to be included in the Habbo Hotel article. First of all, it was organized: a site was created for the specific purpose of directing people to the attack and making it easier (www.poolsclosed.com), not to mention a hacking tool made fo the specific use of trolling (PoolTool) and private documents that were to be available only to the Habbo moderators that were leaked and made publically available can be found there (http://www.poolsclosed.com/viewtopic.php?t=105). Secondly, one only has to google "habbo raid" to see that it is widely known and talked about (here are some random links from various unrelated sites: http://www.digg.com/videos_comedy/GIGANTIC_Habbo_Troll_Raid, http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic.php?id=525516, http://www.shoujoai.com/forum/topic_show.pl?tid=36010 and others). The very fact that it takes up 90% of the talk page should be enough, too... It was also a first for Habbo Hotel, and the mods were unable to act properly (leading to further chaos; "raids" are still going on regularly and many innocents are occasionally banned).

The above lead me to see the purposeful exclusion of the event from the article as being against wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy. 212.205.213.78 00:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I see that someone edited some info in, which is good really, but I think they should have mentioned something in this talk page... Also, it needs some re-writing, I believe. We should avoid terms such as "nigras" and at least mention "4chan". What do you guys think? 194.30.223.1 14:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussions

Let's limit our discussions to Habbo Hotel and stop with the flame wars, ad-hominem blanter, and personal attacks. I suggest those involved (and you know who you are) read up on the talk page guidelines. Seicer (talk) 03:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I moved most of the discussion to an archive page since it exceeded the KB limit per WP:ARCHIVE standards. Do not add to the dead or smoldering comments there. Seicer (talk) 17:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability

Go to habbo hotel, in gaming area, go to poolsphere. Raid is still going on. DyslexicEditor 16:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Let encyclopedia dramatica handle it

Who cares if the raid is not recorded in Wikipedia. It's internet drama, which can be recorded on EncyclopediaDramatica. Even if the article is less than serious.

Internet. Serious business. user:mreddy1

ED is down, changing servers to handle traffic. DyslexicEditor 04:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Because it helps reinforce the precedent that wikipedia can ignore topics the editors personally find displeasing. Liu Bei 05:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Not all editors, just the hivemind. DyslexicEditor 06:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly the problem with not covering this. It happened, and just because people don't like the subject doesn't mean it's non-notable. We have an entire article dedicated to Slashdot trolling phenomena, but we can't even have a paragraph here about a massive collaborative troll raid that temporarily shut down a popular Internet community? 71.203.205.251 14:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I think its more of an issue of not letting the Habbo trouble makers use Wikipedia as their trophy case. Arx Fortis 16:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

(O_O) If that's so, Arx Fortis, you'd better get over to the Emoticon page and search the phrase "surprise buttsecks". Signed, Anonymous, who is Legion.

Controversy section

Unless this is sourced, I'm going to delete it. Go on Google News and you'll find various mentions of Habbo Hotel. What you don't find is anything about the so called racism and the "raid" that took place. Why? Because it's neither encyclopedic or newsorthy and no one cares. Get some sources. - Hahnchen 23:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

If I was a reporter, I could make lots of money on this story. DyslexicEditor 23:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure you could have made some money with the Something Awful Dating Game raid[1] too. But wait, you're not a reporter. And if you were, no editor would print your piece, because no one cares. - Hahnchen 23:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Hahnchen, I'm sure a lot of legitimate Habbos are wondering why they were automatically IP-banned for 1 day upon entering the pool or the rooftop rumble.

Good for them. Wikipedia is not the place to find out. --james _{// bornhj (talk)} 05:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

From what I've gathered, while this is big internet news, this is small "real-life" news. So in a way, not having it is both justified and unjustified, since Wikipedia does have significant coverage of the internet. In any case, hopefully the ED article is enough for the confused Habbos to figure it out for themselves.--Dch111 03:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Vandals

I am in Habbo Hotel in poolsphere and all of the blockers keep saying "WE'RE FROM WIKIPEDIA.ORG". I would upload a screenshot, but I fear that it would be deleted due to some strange copyright issue. I think this is a problem for wikipedia. Todd Lanuzzi 07:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It'll be the same trolls as before, angry that we won't let them have a mention in this article. --james _{// bornhj (talk)} 07:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Almost seems as if we need the semi-protected status back again. Seicer (talk) 12:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Curious. What level of external coverage would be valid to warrant a mention here of something like this? Not trolling here, just genuinely curious. While it was trolling of Habbo when they did this, it WAS wide scale and pretty massive. Personal opinion over whether trolling (for whatever ultimate reason) is right or wrong should play no role in whether some sort of event is notable. From a purely clinical, "did it happen?" standpoint, it was a notable event as a major online service/community with millions of subscribed users was crippled. rootology 16:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's just leave the semi-protected tag on. Vandals from other web-sites, after their stunt, will only degrade the quality of the article. Seicer (talk) 00:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Hacking?

I remember when I used to go on this people used hex editors like art money to change the apearance of there characters beyond what the game allowed. Do you think this should be noted in the history section or have its own section?

No. See: WP:NOT. Seicer (talk) 19:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

What this article is NOT

Keep this in mind when editing. This article (and Wikipedia on a whole) is not:

• "A place for opinions on current affairs" should not be included because it leads to a soapbox-type discussion. It also leads to a few dedicated users to advocate their "pet views" that can lead to trolling (see prior edits in the Discussion).
• "A soapbox." Wikipedia is not here to spread propaganda; doing so violates the neutral point of view stance.
• "For self promotion." Some users were involved directly with the "raid" and therefore should not be editing the article since they were directly involved.
• "A collection of links." Some want to include links to the video or other non-encylopedic links. Wikipedia does not condone link spam and is not a collection of links. It is also not a collection of photographs or media files (or their associated links).
• "An instruction manual." Instructions on how to "script" the hotel (or hex edit using Artmoney, whatever) are not acceptable on Wikipedia. hope you don't mind me adding to your list :) --james _{// bornhj (talk)} 13:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• See What Wikipedia is not, Neutral Point of View. Seicer (talk) 12:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Is the Afro plus suit and tie some kind of historic style, like Malcom X, maybe? So familiar. Anomo 22:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Big Question about Habbo

Why do most people in there just stand around doing nothing? They don't talk, often barely move. What are they doing that for? Are they just staring blankly at the screen? Anomo 06:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Why does it matter? That sort of thing doesn't belong on this page anyway. --james^(talk) 07:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering this for my own knowledge. Anomo 07:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

You actually paid money for this game to watch them do that? Wow. :) Seicer

Actually, u dont have to pay to go on habbo, i havent payed anything to get any of the furniture i have and i have loads. and i dont know what room the person who started this topic was in because when i go into a room everyone is talking to eachother.--Don.-.J 15:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

(talk) (contribs) 13:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Article should be trimmed?

This article is way too large for a rather unimportant service such as Habbo Hotel. The feature section is basically a gigantic advertisement. More should be focused on the analysis and impacts and problems of the service rather than a summary of what every feature is that exists in the game. Countchoc 01:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the article is reading very much like an advertisement. It is also very lengthy for a multiplayer game, where most of the games of similar nature are very short. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The Notability of the Pool Closed Raids

I think that the raids are not notable enough for wikipedia, but for a smaller wiki they are. There is a factual wiki here http://trendpedia.elwiki.com/Habbo_Hotel that mentions the raids. It also includes habbo.com's viewpoint on the raids, which might make one regret the raiding. Playingviolin1 05:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The mods have backed down.

The mods are letting the blockers stay in the room without bans and kicks. THIS IS IMPORTANT! Anonymouses 04:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Appearantly not that important that it needed to be at the top of a talk page that contained shouting (e.g. topic all in caps). Please read up on WP:TPG and note that the discussions must be verifiable, and that discussions in the talk page is for research and discussions pertaining to the Wikipedia article, not about the game itself. Keep all rumours and the whole "pools closed" lot out of this talk page. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

4chan shows more will than the Habbo mods and staff. The staff refused to ban, and 4chan decided to stay. After an hour of no-bans, the habbo staff gave it up and banned all of the blockers. 4chan has prevailed. Anonymouses 05:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)