Talk:4chan/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 → Archive 15

4chan /b/ goes over 66000000 posts

4chan's /b/ has just surpassed 66000000 posts as of Monday, May 5 2008. Post was made at 19.25.11 according to 4chan's timestamp. Would anyone with the ability like to update the article please? Screenshots were taken of the post as proof, links are found on this page: http://img.4chan.org/b/res/66000716.html. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.154.224 (talk) 23:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Extraneous info is fail. I'm sorry, but this was reverted before because the number of posts a forum has, regardless of its fame, is irrelevant. -Jéské (v^_^v E pluribus unum) 00:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Further, 404'd links don't help your case. -Jéské (v^_^v E pluribus unum) 00:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
So, just curious, what was 66000000GET? WinGET or FailGet? --GhostStalker(Got a present for ya! | Mission Log) 03:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Fail... it was apparently a "Stop Jew" sign but everybody missed it in the frenzy. 69.196.141.174 (talk) 05:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
"After /b/'s 31,000,000th post was made on June 16, 2007, it took just 9 days to accumulate another 1,000,000, meaning /b/'s posting rate had attained an average of more than 111,000 posts per day. Certain post numbers, such as 12345678 and 22222222, and the aforementioned milestones, are sought after, with a large amount of posting taking place to "GET" them." I think this needs to be updated...213.140.22.68 (talk) 16:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

lol wut

Only a small minority of 4chan users actually take part in "Project Chanology", and it should be noted that most are opposed to the protests. it would appear scilons have modified this page. 68.0.144.113 (talk) 01:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


No, thats the truth. Project failology is fail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.117.141.8 (talk) 17:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Uh... your pretty retarded. moot himself thinks chanology is fucking stupid.

Is 4chan a website?

The article says it's a board. But back in the day there were bulletin boards, and its name is chan and there are IRC channels... so I came here to find out what it is, and the article should say what it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.110.168 (talk) 01:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC) 4chan is an imageboard which is a type of website, so yes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.69.3.236 (talk) 00:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

IRC chanells and BBS are something different. 4chan is a discussion board, which means it is website. There are tons of internet forums on WWW now :) --Have a nice day. Running 00:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the image at the top should be the actual 4chan logo, not a screencap of the frontpage. But that's just me. Howa0082 (talk) 05:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The 4chan logo isn't finalized, the contest for the new one is still underway. Even if it was, someone would have to email moot to get it gfdl licensed. A screencap can at least be claimed as fair use. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 03:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Logos are used all the time under fair use (Wikipedia:Logos). --Phirazo 05:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Tom Green

Why does this page say nothing about how the 4chan mess up Tom Greens show all the time? This should be on the page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tidussquall10x (talk • contribs) 09:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources? J Milburn (talk) 16:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
The only sources for that would be the actual webisodes of his show, which I think are either on his site or YouTube or something. For instance, this. [1] Howa0082 (talk) 16:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, we could possibly have a section on that. He certainly mentions 4chan! Any third party sources, or is it just him in his shows (plus blog, whatever)? J Milburn (talk) 16:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
There's usually a thread which pops up on /b/ when 4chan feels like messing with Tom Green. I'd say that's pretty definitive.Belfunk (talk) 19:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


Someone should add this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.82.183 (talk) 23:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Needs adding in to the article ASAP jump on it! jump on it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.31.109 (talk) 20:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Post stats

Though it isn't a major highlight of the article, I've gone through the post stats and updated them. Two points should be mentioned:

1m GETs for boards other than /b/:

Reached: /a/, /co/, /v/, /k/, /m/, /r/, /s/, /h/ and /tg/ (nine)

Close: /g/ (0.9m), /gif/ (0.9m) /tv/ (0.8m), /mu/ (0.8m), /d/ (0.7m)


Notes on /a/ and /v/:

/a/ currently has 8m+, /v/ currently has 9m+. While the disparity is not important to the article, the note about them should obviously be updated when the lesser numbered board (currently /a/) goes up to the next million.

--Muna (talk) 19:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I bumped up to the next million a little while ago. Once /a/ hits 10m, a significant milestone, we can just let it sit at saying "over 10m" until it gets to 20m. :) --Muna (talk) 04:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

typical view

no offence to any frequent 4chan goers but there should be something about how people who go 4chan are typically viewed as losers or emo's. That's true right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twinscythe (talk • contribs) 13:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources? J Milburn (talk) 18:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Someone needs to make that into a demotivator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.181.241.99 (talk) 04:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Don't encourage him. Pacific Coast Highway {talk • contribs} 21:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it isn't. 4chan is notorius for launching XBOX HUEG raids against furry, emo, goth, anime-fan, and pro-anorexic communities, just to name a few. These people, who really are losers and (almost always) emo to boot, go to their youtube and rave about how the evil people attacked them, typically, in a fit of hypocrisy, claiming that the channers are, in fact, the emo's and losers, which is false. The group of people who use 4chan are a mix of all different kinds of people, hence one of their many unofficial mottos:

"We take out your garbage. We cook your food. We go to school with you. We are your coworkers. We are the people across the street. We are the postman, we are the delivers of your pizza. We are anonymous. Do not fuck with us."

Hope this illuminated the situation. --124.40.47.75 (talk) 13:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, 4chan users are the kind of people who think Fight Club was a clever film and like to quote from it at random. --86.135.126.195 (talk) 15:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
This is not a forum for discussion of 4chan, it is for discussing the article. There are no reliable sources discussing the 'typical view' of 4chan members, so it will not be included. Whether you agree or not is irrelevent, it isn't going in the article. J Milburn (talk) 19:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Can I cite this as a typical situation that supports the 'typical view' that Wikipedia admins are power-tripping buzzkills?98.208.95.209 (talk) 23:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Depends. Can you get your men off the Pokémon articles before I feel compelled to DDoS 4chan? (The preceding comment was meant to be sarcastic.) -Jéské (v^_^v Damn spy sappin' mah sentry!) 00:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed items

I've removed the following:

Besides lolcats, memes include the 'FBI party van' for legally questionable content.[1]

We don't want to list memes here - that's what Wikichan[2] is for. In addition, that source was horribly incorrect.

I've also removed the reference to ED out of the following:

Newcomers and outsiders often find posts incomprehensible, though Encyclopedia Dramatica is known to provide some explanations.

Encyclopaedia Dramatica is full of humorous misinformation, so please provide a source before making claims like that. --Muna (talk) 03:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

We're not listing memes, it's an example for incomprehensibility. ED is mentioned in exactly the source you removed. To show that the source is 'horribly incorrect', you may need some other reliable source to back you up. We're not out to enforce truth here. –Pomte 04:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
It's 4chan Party Van, not "FBI Party Van", as Wikichan[3], a dedicated *chan wiki will tell you. If you want to re-add the bit about Encyclopaedia Dramatica with the source linked to it, feel free, just don't re-add the other piece of bogus information. --Muna (talk) 04:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
OMG, someone mentioning ED on Wikipedia. Someone else even suggesting linking to it as a source! That'll get you a lifetime ban, at the least. ;)
BTW, unless things have changed within the last 4 months, you physically can't add a source link to Encyclopaedia Dramatica on Wikipedia. Try it, and see what happens. Meowy 18:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
That's not what's being suggested. –Pomte 18:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
My point was that Wikichan and personal knowledge aren't reliable. –Pomte 18:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
It may be humorous, and may be full of misinformation, but generally speaking, if you have a working bullshit detector, you can figure out what's what. Many of the articles have perfectly valid information shrouded in extreme hyperbole and homophobia. We don't have an article on Longcat here. ED does. Someone comes here wondering what Longcat is, and they won't find out. ED explains it, though.
"One day, there was a picture of a cat. It was not Caturday but this specific cat was so long it became a meme and, though the day was not specifically the day of cats, this cat's length became famous." ... "Longcat is accompanied by the phrase Longcat is looooong, usually with a photoshopped image of the cat made much longer. Longcat really isn't that long."
Isn't that pretty clear? May not have dates and all sorts of crap we demand here, but it's informative and tells you what's what. That's what ED and Wikichan can be used as references for. Wikichan's more sedate than ED, though, and from the new server move, will probably have far less objectionable material, if that was part of your issue. Howa0082 (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, Wikichan and Encyclopedia Dramatica are good places to learn about memes that you may not understand or whatever, but they are absolutely not reliable sources. We don't have an article on longcat because it just isn't notable. Wikichan and Encyclopedia Dramatica are based on original research- they have to be, there are no sources. Damuna was right to remove the comment- not because the source is wrong (we are about verifiability, not truth) but because the cited source doesn't mention Encyclopedia Dramatica or 'FBI Party Van' at all. J Milburn (talk) 09:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
There are 5 pages in that article. I cited the specific page numbers at first, but those citations got merged into one. –Pomte 15:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, apologies, I didn't notice, fair enough. If ED and 'FBI party van' are mentioned in later pages of the source, then I support re-adding the statement. J Milburn (talk) 19:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Erm, pally. Any secondary source is based on Original Research. That's why they are secondary, as opposed to primary. Someone went out and researched the topic, which is what we are supposed to do here, actually, but with the ability to reference our claims with other works to prove we're not just making it up. Now, Wikichan and ED may not be consistantly RELIABLE, but they are NOT Original Research on our part. The research, however poor, has been done already by someone else. Thus, our use of ED or Wikichan falls absolutely clearly into "secondary" status. If you really want to push this idea that ED and Wikichan are "OR", then I guess we just have to outlaw Google searches, don't we? Synthesizing the information gathered through a Google search, even with references, sounds like Original Research by this hilarious definition policy wanks use. To be clear on this, I am not currently debating reliability, because that is for the individual adding the information to decide. I am merely informing you as to what a secondary source is, since you seem to be an idiot confused. ED is a secondary source, because it talks about things that happen elsewhere. Those discussed places are the primary source. Of course ED and Wikichan are original research, but WE are the ones who are not supposed to do that, not THEM. Primary: 4chan. Secondary: Something which discusses 4chan directly, through it's own research and observations, like Encyclopedia Dramatica. Tertiary: Something which can use that secondary source to sythesize an informative article on the subject. That's us! Howa0082 (talk) 16:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I was giving a direct comparison between us and Encyclopedia Dramatica/Wikichan. I was saying that Encyclopedia Dramatica/Wikichan, unlike us, are based on original research, so saying 'Encyclopedia Dramatica covers them, why don't we' does not quite work. If you look, I didn't say "CITING ENCYCLOPEDIA DRAMATICA = OR", I said "Wikichan and Encyclopedia Dramatica are based on original research", which is absolutely true. J Milburn (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

canadian medal of freedom (lol)

there should be a section about the canadian pedophile that got caught with the help of Anonymous http://torontosun.com/News/TorontoAndGTA/2007/12/07/4712438-sun.html

encyclopediadramatica.com/Internet_Vigilante_Group the toronto sun link is no longer accessible for free, there is only the incipit. too bad. 130.251.167.59 (talk) 14:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You can see the entire article here: http://neoengel.livejournal.com/173798.html
It's a blog post that reports the entire article, I found it googling the first sentence of the Toronto Sun article ( [4] )

130.251.167.59 (talk) 14:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

it's been added to the Anonymous (group) article, with sources. is it notable also for this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.251.167.28 (talk) 11:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced

The sources given for the connection between 4chan and the scientology attacks are not sufficient. They speak of the group "anonymous" but no where is 4chan mentioned. If no source can be found, I will remove the content.Joeldipops (talk) 08:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

If a source cannot be found specifically mentioning 4chan, I support the removal. I can't check the sources at this time, as I am in college, and my connection is overly filtered. J Milburn (talk) 15:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I have switched to a source that does specifically mention 4chan, as well as removing the Wikinews links, as they don't specifically mention 4chan as being behind the attacks, they only mention a site described as a 'spinoff of 4chan'. The section could still use expansion. J Milburn (talk) 15:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Guys, you know there's a good reason why the connection has never been confirmed, right? 76.10.171.43 (talk) 16:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah people, 4chan is Annonymous. Identities cannot be confirmed, get that into your head. IMHO Anonymous represents all of Annonymous board of which 4chan is a Lionshare of the traffic and therefore users, hence it becomes synonymous with anonymous.Scientes.bonum.et.malum (talk) 11:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Linking directly to /b/

Some editors are adding in the external links a direct link to the /b/ subsection of 4chan. I do not think this is appropriate. This is partly because it links to an age-18-and-over section of the website. By linking to it dirctly, Wikipedia is bypassing the "18+" warning. It is also an uneccessary link - the front page of 4chan already has a direct link to /b/ so it is easy to navigate there from the main 4chan.org url. Meowy 13:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored, and so we are free to link to content suitable only for over 18s, but I agree that a link there is pointless. J Milburn (talk) 15:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with J Milburn here.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 21:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a typo

"... including posts sporting terrorist threats against schools and ...

I think it's supposed to be "supporting".

No, it's correct, see the third or fourth way 'sport' can be used as a verb, quote: "(transitive) to wear (something) with pride (Jen's sporting a new pair of shoes.)" or "to bear a mark or wound with embarrassment". J Milburn (talk) 19:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
That may be true, but 'supporting' still makes more sense, given the context. Belfunk (talk) 11:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Means two entirely different things. Eleven Special (talk) 18:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Supporting terrorist threats would be "YEAH YOU BLOW UP THAT SCHOOL! ROCK ON, MAHFAWKA!" Sporting terrorist threats would be "I will blow up the school. Watch NBC to find out how!" /b/'s general attitude is more "Yeah yeah, sure pal. Pictures or it didn't happen." Hardly supportive. Howa0082 (talk) 22:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Recent Wired article 2008

A recent Wired article about online griefers includes confirmation of this many parts of this statement

"The humor of /b/'s many users, who refer to themselves as "/b/tards",[12] is often incomprehensible to newcomers and outsiders, and is frequently characterized by intricate inside jokes and black comedy.[citation needed]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeroday (talk • contribs) 11:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added it back. It was removed above. –Pomte 12:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

7Chan

Why is there nothing about 7chan (and others) splitting from 4chan? ArcaneKnowledge (talk) 01:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it notable and has it been reported by outside sources? InsaneZeroG (talk) 02:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I suppose it's notable, but I don't know if there are any quality sources. ArcaneKnowledge (talk) 22:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I have no quality sources but it should be notable, as after 7chan split off from 4chan due to furries, a lot of other *chans sprung up (like 420 Chan). 71.247.32.244 (talk) 19:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
We cannot include this information until we have some quality sources. J Milburn (talk) 19:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Try Encyclopedia Dramatica. Since the community is mostly populated by *chan users, the content is (somewhat) reliable for chan history. Belfunk (talk) 00:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Project Chanology

I noticed that there's little more than the bare-bones essentials regarding the whole affair with the Church of Scientology. A good addition would probably be how it all started: from the Tom Cruise video. It all came from the fact that the CoS tried to censor it, which got Anonymous all fired up. A lot more information can be found (believe it or not) on the Encyclopedia Dramatica page. Belfunk (talk) 23:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The "Scientology" section would be more accurately named as "Project Chanology". For anyone wishing to expand it, I would suggest using (possibly just copying-and-pasting) the "Project Chanology" section from the Anonymous (group) article, which is a heavily-condensed summary of the Project Chanology article itself. Ayla (talk) 00:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd agree with that one; the Project Chanology debacle is more a significant event for 4chan, which is basically indistinguishable from Anonymous, so we might as well put it in the parent article. Belfunk (talk) 02:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The statement "successfully proposed a resolution to have the COS tax exempt status revoked" needs clarification or linking to understand what the legal status of such a resolution in Texas implies and what "successfully" means. Vigilius (talk) 14:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

German magazine article

I remember there was an article published in a German magazine which was brought to the attention of the 4chan community quite recently. It contained an explanation of how 4chan, particularly /b/, often works. It looks like a reliable source, too. I don't understand German but I do have an unofficial translation of the article. I think that the article could be used to reliably source information in this article and expand on things that would previously have been original research. Thoughts?--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 21:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I know some Deutsch. Can we have a link? Belfunk (talk) 11:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Since links to Encyclopedia Dramatica are barred, just go to ED and look at the DAS TROLLPARADIES article. I think that the magazine article itself (not ED, obviously) could and should be used as a source actually.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 12:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The article in question is http://www.heise.de/kiosk/archiv/ct/08/06/098_Das_Trollparadies (download fees), citable in its printed form as Himmelein, Gerald 2008. Das Trollparadies. c't Magazin für Computertechnik 6/2008: p. 98-103. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vigilius (talk • contribs) 14:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

ARTICLE IS LACKING IN FACTS

I note that the Wikinazis have locked this article to prevent anyone correcting it. Frist off -- whether they ever did or didn't -- right now, BT has NOT got a ban on /b/, so that's bullshit straight away...

This "article" is typical wikiality. Full of lies and protected by a cabal. If you are going to protect the truth, then protect the Truth, not lies. What? Does Jimbo Wales have money invested somewhere in a company related to this article? What are you hiding wikinazis? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.142.150 (talk) 17:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The reason this is protected is because 4chan is a....how shall we say...."less than helpful" community (see: DESU DESU DESU DESU), and so this article was vandalized repeatedly. The content that you see was actually made by members of 4chan, but so is the extensive vandalism in the edit history.
Your comments are uncivil and unconstructive - WP:NOT#BATTLE. Continue and you will be blocked. Everybody else, please don't acknowledge his accusations if you choose to respond; DNFT — TheBilly(Talk) 02:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

True, his comments may be a bit on the rude side, but what he is saying has some merit. Some of the information in the article may be a bit outdated. Belfunk (talk) 11:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

No doubt. People were so fixated on goddamn Caturday and the latest GET, they missed out on keeping meaningful content current. Howa0082 (talk) 22:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
So, has anyone found a source for the supposed lifting of the BT ban? I haven't been able to. Belfunk (talk) 14:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopædia Dramatica

I want to ask here - if there is article about 4chan, why there is no article about encyclopædia dramatica, which is quite connected with 4chan and the community around it...

yes, if 4chan is notable, dramatica is notable too. ok, there are some bad images on the site, the site has unproven facts and it is really not an encyclopedia, but it doesnt do anything with notability...

I have came upon this really hysterical deletion nomination with NO REAL reason for deletion of that article - and with such laughable arguments as My view on this is that there are some subjects--Daniel Brandt, Encyclopedia Dramatica, and Wikipedia Review being chief amongst them--on which we cannot expect to write dispassionately and neutrally..

I dont know so much about the subject, but my opinion is article about dramatica should be re-created. --Have a nice day. Running 03:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

And for the notability - according to Alexa, dramatica has twice more hits than Uncyclopedia, that HAS its own article here. [5] --Have a nice day. Running 03:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia is a satirization of WP, presenting "humorous" takes on topics. ED calls specific WP editors and admin cocksuckers, faggots, and pedophiles. Which is why you can't put an article about ED up in articlespace without it getting baleeted within an hour by those selfsame admin or their buddies. That's just the way it works around here. Sorry. Notability has nothing to do with it. Howa0082 (talk) 04:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia enjoys deleting the articles of its critics. Shii (tock) 06:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I will maybe recreate it then. Last deletion was in 2006 and I feel things moved up a little bit from that time. You know maybe more than me about this thing, but well, wikipedia says on one page that it is neutral, so it should not delete this article as "violent" or "critical". I will maybe need some website links as outside sources, since this article will need them to convince people it is notable --Have a nice day. Running 08:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh well, last deletion review was in 2008 (altough not that hysterical as in 2006) - Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_January_10. I will still try to recreate the article, but I really need to find some sources about notability. --Have a nice day. Running 08:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

No, the reason we have no article on Encyclopedia Dramatica is because of the absence of reliable sources. No one in the press will write about ED, and with good reason. The fact that it slags off our admins and users is the reason we don't allow links to it, but an article on it could not, at this time, pass our notability or verifiability guidelines. In any case, to create one, you'll have to go through deletion review, and unless you've got a very convincing case involving reliable sources, your attempt will be shot down. If you do have reliable sources, I'll be there fighting tooth and nail to get the article back with you. Last point- Wikipedia makes a habit of deleting articles on its critics because they request it. I think we should ignore them, but whatever, it's been done now. J Milburn (talk) 09:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

OK OK, I didn't mean to offend someone, I just thought that ED is notable (more than uncyclopedia, for example). I don't visit the site regularly, altough I know about it and yes, I laugh sometimes at some articles ... I just think both wikipedia critics and wikipedia supporters should be allowed here on wikipedia, even when they are untrue, not reliable, gruesome, vandalising.... And yes, I will try to find some reliable sources for ED article, altough I think I will find none... --Have a nice day. Running 10:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Uncyclopedia has featured in a lot of reliable sources, ED has had (at last check) two half mentions in passing. I agree that we should have articles on critics, supporters, everything; as long as it's notable and, at this time, I doubt very much that Encyclopedia Dramatica is. J Milburn (talk) 10:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Hm, what does this mean? [6] Why there is written The article on Encyclopedia Dramatica will not be recreated. Ever.? Why so much hate, when wikipedia is telling the world about is neutrality? I don't have a good feeling about this hystery ... and yeah, I know I am maybe 2 or 3 years late :) --Have a nice day. Running 17:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
That isn't written there? Regardless, many people believe (and I'm among them) that Encyclopedia Dramatica will never be notable. J Milburn (talk) 18:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Consensus says that with one or two more prominent mentions ED will deserve an article: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 March 6 Shii (tock) 23:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, with no "vandalous" intentions, I created user subpage, where I explain, why ED should be, in my opinion, recreated - but I will give it some time. Feel free to edit factual (or language) mistakes or to comment in discussion. There are some sources for possible recreation of ED article at the bottom of subpage. --Have a nice day. Running 23:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

"Commercial" designation

Regarding the "Commercial? Yes." in the infobox, how do we know if 4chan is profitable or non-profitable? Wikipedian06 (talk) 20:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

There are adverts on 4chan, so i'd say its a commercial website. As for whether or not its profitable, i doubt there are any sources that will tell us that.--Kip Kip 22:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
What are the differences between "commercial" and "non-commerical" sites on wikipedia anyway? I would delete this section, it does not have any value --Have a nice day. Running 16:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
There may be adverts, but you don't have to pay money to use 4chan; it's just to help keep the place running. To me, that sounds like non-commercial ad-supported. But I could be wrong, in terms of the weird definitions here. Howa0082 (talk) 16:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure moot loses money on 4chan despite the ads. 68.181.216.166 (talk) 16:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I doubt it. It's expensive to run a site of that size- if he was losing money, he would be losing A LOT. Anyway, this is a moot (cue hilarity) point, as we don't have sources. J Milburn (talk) 18:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, moot says this about the costs and ads:
Still don't know if that's "commercial=yes" or "commercial=no":) --Have a nice day. Running 22:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Whether a site is commercial depends on whether it generates a profit, or whether the owners intend for it to generate a profit. For example, MuggleNet is entirely free to register/use, but its webmaster, business student Emerson Spartz, constantly mentions its six-figure income (through advertisements) in interviews regarding the site. Hence, the site is designated as "commercial" because the owner's sole intent is to generate profit from it. YouTube may be operating at break-even, but its purpose as a business is to generate profit and hence, it's commercial.

I think 4chan would better fit the "commercial" designation for now. Wikipedian06 (talk) 22:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

access from the uk

The section on blocking from the UK is factually incorrect - it says NTL are blocking it; NTL are now Virgin Media, and are not blocking. I just accessed the /b/ board with no issues at all, while using a Virgin Media (thus NTL) account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.232.171 (talk) 18:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this section is incorrect, I was thining of adding a scentence to the end of the section to say the block is no longer in effect, unfortunately i can't find any sources to back me up on this, so adding it could be a violation of WP:OR so i'd like someone else's opinion on this.--Kip Kip 15:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, just add that the block 'appears to have been removed', it's highly unlikely a 'reliable source' is ever going to run an article merely explaining that 4chan/b/ is available again. Modest Genius talk 20:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

April Fool's Day 2008

YouTube, GameFAQs, LiveJournal, deviantART, and isoHunt are all running April Fool's Day pranks based on 4chan memes. --129.241.151.140 (talk) 13:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources mentioning 4chan in relation to this? J Milburn (talk) 21:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Uh, I don't know about livejournal, deviantart and isoHunt, but all of the featured videos on youtube led to rickrolls (a meme originally created by 4chans /b/ and has been a round for a very long time) and here is the poll from gamefaqs [8]71.249.62.170 (talk) 00:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Rickroll hasn't been around for that long - duckroll then again has. 62.106.48.192 (talk) 18:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Importance

Ok, newfags and oldfags alike. There's a little editwar over the importance ranking for Internet Culture on this article. We need to perhaps figure this out.

  • Top Importance: 4chan memes, though unreferenced for the most part, are recognized and circulated to the point that old ladies in government offices circulate pictures of Longcat in their emails and, with the whole Chanology thing, it can be argued that the Anonymous name/culture, originating (in an unreferenced way) from 4chan, is now known.
  • Mid Importance: Those same old ladies have never heard of 4chan, despite knowing cat macros and other stupid shit that comes out of the site. They don't know that Anonymous is an internet forum in-joke, but they think those nice young men in the smiley-man masks have a good point about Scientology.
  • Low Importance: eBaum's World, bitches! (this one is a joke, but you know what I mean.)

Those are MY arguments for the two inportance ratings. I would appreciate a further discussion on this. Howa0082 (talk) 00:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd say Mid importance is too low, so the choice is between High and Top importance. There are quite a few memes that originate there, some even have their own articles here, on the other hand there will be quite a few people who aren't familiar with 4chan. I'd say to start a discussion over at the appropriate Wikiproject and see what happens there (but looking at the talk page it seems rather slow). There is also no importance scale for this wikiproject, so there is no guidelines to help us there.--Kip Kip 00:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
There are few issues here less important than the importance ranking. –Pomte 03:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Google 4chan - 1 million results
Google o rly? - 8 million results
Conclusion: 4chan's prominent fads are more well-known than 4chan itself. Hence, it can't be of top importance. Wikipedian06 (talk) 03:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Top was perhaps a bad one to choose, but it IS the non-Mid one some people keep reinserting. How about High? Howa0082 (talk) 03:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I think High would also be best. I've gone ahead and changed it, and it will probably stay that way, unless anyone else can come up with a good reason for being Top or Mid importance Kip Kip 08:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I think either high or top is appropriate. Chanspeak and memes have infiltrated most corners of the popular Internet to some extent. "Lulz-speak" is slowly but surely becoming the new leet.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 21:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking of a possible deletion review of List of 4chan memes

I'm pretty sure a reliably sourced list could be written, but I'm not quite sure how many memes could be included. With the coverage surrounding Project Chanology, such as this as just one example of many news features, I think there's mention of the memes enough that a list could be written. Thoughts? For example, there's enough coverage of "Epic Fail Guy" in that to justify its inclusion in a list - and then there are far more famous memes, including Rickroll and O RLY. The only problem I can see is that the memes themselves are not always attributed to 4chan, often just "Anonymous" or not even given any particular attribution. There's also the fact that some of these memes appear on other chans like 7chan (I don't know all that much about the non-4chan chans). I'd like to hear opinions on this, and I may consider writing a draft, sourced list at some stage.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 20:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Having said that, there are many famous memes that I haven't seen get any mainstream coverage. I've yet to see a reliable source mention Happy Negro, Cockmongler or Pedobear. For example, Pedobear is a strong contender for being the single most popular 4chan meme (every time I go to /b/ I seem to see Pedobear brought up somewhere), but due to the fact that people are scared to joke about pedophilia (remember the Brass Eye TV show controversy in the UK?) it's a whole lot less likely to receive coverage in reliable sources.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 20:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
The problem, as you say, is attribution to 4chan in particular. If you have references, might I reccomend contibuting to list of Internet phenomena? J Milburn (talk) 18:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
How about "List of imageboard memes" (to include all the *chans?) Again, it's somewhat problematic as some memes were invented on imageboards and spread to other parts of the Internet (Rickroll), and possibly vice-versa...--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 16:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion article.

Though I'm currently violating them, the first two rules of the website www.4chan.org are not to talk about 4chan. This article is obviously violating these rules. For wikipedia made the marking for deletion too complicated, I'm posting here. The article about 4chan was deleted multiple times, but I rather settle this matter in an official way. Please consider respecting the rules of the site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.100.212.245 (talk) 15:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree 100%.

Wikipedia is not bound by 4chan's rules. Now go take your Fight Club elsewhere. -Jéské (v^_^v Karistaa Usko) 19:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
That "rule" that you have stated only is for website raids done by /b/. And also, to quote /b/, "The stories and information posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact." --azure talk × contribs 23:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention the people who actually abide by these "rules of the internet" are often looked down upon on 4chan, I believe the term "rulefags" is applied. --Robnubis (talk) 16:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Something Obvious

Has anyone thought about the rule on 4chan to not tell anyone about 4chan? this wikipedia coverage isn't exactly honering them in anyways. (And it is missing infor on loads of stuff.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quixzen (talk • contribs) 13:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

We aren't here to honour sites, we are here to report about them in a neutral way. We are missing things for two reasons- firstly, because people aren't adding them, secondly, because there aren't any reliable sources. 4chan's unofficial 'rules' are meaningless here. J Milburn (talk) 18:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Considering 4chan doesn't follow their own rules, this is laughable. HalfShadow (talk) 19:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm curious: if 4chan the company filed a cease and desist, would wikipedia comply? More importantly, examining the site's robots.txt file demonstrates it wishes to be excluded from all meta-internet services. This is not an unofficial, silly rule. This is an expression from the site administration using a technologically accepted standard medium. If I may be so bold to suggest it, this issue appears to have become a proving grounds for the right and proper role of Wikipedia. I think both sides of this argument could stand to forgo some pedantry and be more dispassionate. 71.59.57.122 (talk) 04:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
That is not a legal requirement, it's a polite request. We have every legal right to include this non-libellous information. 4chan has no right to demand that it is not written about, just to request it, and robots.txt does not have to be followed by search engines and the like, though many choose to. We report only what has been reported elsewhere already anyway, and so 4chan's concern should not be with what we are publishing, but with what our sources are. J Milburn (talk) 16:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

But still on that front, if 4chan asked to get off of wikipedia, would they take the page off the site? It's an interesting though. and mr. milburn, the page is missing LOADS of things that 4chan has done, so this page is pathetically numb anyway. It should probably reference wikichan somewhere in the aticle at least.

Um, i just have to say on this subject, that most of the people on this not being 4chan users themselves, cannot acurately describe 4chan.

Well, you are all wrong about 4chan rules. 4chan rules are here - http://www.4chan.org/rules.php#global - lets read the first two.
1. Do not upload, post, discuss, request, or link to, anything that violates local or United States law. This will be severely punished and strictly enforced.
2. If you are under the age of 18, or it is illegal for you to view the materials contained on this website, discontinue browsing immediately.
Not anything about talking about 4chan at all. There are "rules of the internet" (not rules of 4chan), that does not talk about 4chan.org, but about one special board on 4chan, and are meant as half-joke anyway. And these "rules" have one sidenote: Note: Rules 1 & 2 only apply to raids. Oh well. Learn your own rules. --Have a nice day. Running 20:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, i have to reask the question of people not being users giving good and acurate information that was noted above. What are the oppinions? The-Guardian-Of-Blah (talk) 18:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem isn't that the editors on this page aren't users of 4chan. The problem with getting "acurate" information is that there are hardly any articles out there that say things beyond what you read in this article. If you'd have read the talk page, you'd have known this. But then, not reading the talk page and blindly posting "rules 1 & 2!" is hardly uncommon behavior from /b/tards. This entire topic spawned from someone's inability to notice the previously posted topic was also "hay gais, wut about rules 1 n 2??/" So perhaps this article should be written by people who don't have a huge emotional investment in 4chan. Howa0082 (talk) 23:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I get your point, but don't judge all /b/tards by few idiots. Guys blindly posting "rules 1 & 2" are so-called "cancer" - there are a lot of "normal" - well, thats not the right word, but you get the idea - people out there. I just cannot say if the cancer is in majority or minority --Have a nice day. Running 10:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
And don't judge all /b/tards by one retard that claims to speak for all of us. Newfags (People who joined generally after the Chanology) Did not comprehend that Oldfags (The opposite of Newfags) did not want attention. All the Oldfags have now left and the Newfags have replaced them. The rules no longer apply.--Malcomfries (talk) 02:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not judging any one group of people, frankly. But when people show up and go "hur hur, rulz1 & 2", it's retarded. You can be a /b/tard and still contribute well. I do it myself. It's easy to leave the mentality of 4chan behind when you come here, but some people don't get it. Sure, those people might be newfags, if you insist on using the term here. But there's plenty of oldfags who are absolute bell-ends about /b/ outside of said board, as well. So you can't go off about newfags, because all of us were such once. Anyway, what the hell were we talking about here? Whether the "rules of the internet" apply to this article, right? Sorry to have derailed the discussion like this. Howa0082 (talk) 02:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Eh, sorry, I read your comment maybe a little bit wrong. And yeah, this discussion is 100% meaningless. --Have a nice day. Running 00:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
That only applies to raids. atomicthumbs‽ (talk) 21:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

That answers my question. I personally have no oppinion worth talking on, but I wanted to know what others thoug. The-Guardian-Of-Blah (talk) 19:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Anti-gay attitude

There should be a more general point made in the article regarding the blithe use of anti-gay slurs like "fag" by 4chan and its patrons, including some of those who have posted on this discussion page. There is also the strange issue of the ban on male-oriented photos in the hardcore porn sub-forum, leaving Yaoi (cartoon gay sex based on top and bottom stereotyping) as the only place for male-oriented photos, photos that cannot be of real men. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.103.116 (talk) 12:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I see gay porn every day in /b/. As for the overuse of fag, I don't really think it's noteworthy given their overuse of slurs for every demographic; to single out homosexuals would be to do a disservice to everyone else who is made fun of on 4chan. In fact, often times, fag is just used as a synonym for "person", such as "What's up, ausfag here . . ." meaning a person from Australia (or Austria . . . har har). Broooooooce (talk) 14:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Seconded, also Yaoi was at the bottom (before the frontpage revamp) because board's were in alphabetical order in respect to the URL letter of each, /y/ being last because there's no /z/ board (actually, there were a few boards in a section below it). Someone's just a politically correct butthurt fag 75.181.103.47 (talk) 12:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

If there's demand for a gay board then it wil be added, such as the recent demand for a sports board resulting in /sp/. There's obviously no demand for gay pornographic images, and yes it has been noted that there are often such images posted in /b/ and they are never deleted unless there is cause for them to be. And 4chan isnt the only place in world where the word fag is thrown around a lot --Robnubis (talk) 16:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Pedobear redirect

For consistency's sake, will the first available admin either create Pedo Bear and Pedo bear as protected redirects here or delete and salt the existing protected redirect Pedobear. Thanks. 76.187.61.116 (talk) 17:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Teenager arrested after threats to CEGEP du Vieux Montréal

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=0a19c1ca-adb6-44fc-b567-abf26fe25fbc&k=23018

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjuJ9qfUx7A

I am the one that made the threats...i am going back to court on the 29th to get my sentence.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eternalkorea (talk • contribs) 20:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Nothing in that article states that 4chan was where the threats were posted. Broooooooce (talk) 02:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

the link

There should be a warning for the shocking and disgusting content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.9.121 (talk) 18:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Read the article; that should have been enough warning. -Jéské (v^_^v E pluribus unum) 18:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

anonimity

/b/ no longer forces anonimity, if someone would like to edit this out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.203.13.4 (talk) 01:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not think it ever did, and it doesn't say that now... -Jéské (v^_^v E pluribus unum) 04:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It did ban tripcodes, your only way of proving who you are... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.195.20 (talk) 01:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

dsfargeg vs. random

User:Redmagemp3 still revert the name back to Dsfargeg- i think it's stupid. The forum is linked from main page as "Random", as well as from other boards (if you hold your mouse above that /b/ letter, title is "Random")... 4chan mods have "renamed" it, i guess as a joke, to dsfargeg, but historically it's "random" and not "dsfargeg". --Have a nice day. Running 15:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Can some one write a 'm00t' article please?

I think not much more needs to be said: Can some one write a 'm00t' article please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.68.193 (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that will happen anytime soon. All moot is known for is founding 4chan and running off to mootxico with donations. That's not even a stub. Let's wait for him to show up in the papers for something. As it is, there could maybe be a short section within this article about him in his capacity as a near-meme. Howa0082 (talk) 23:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

why is pedobear redirected here?

any ideas? because there seems to be nothing about the pedobear on this page.--124.168.95.171 (talk) 08:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It redirects here in order to preserve the original article's edit history; it is a protected redirect. -Jéské (v^_^v E pluribus unum) 08:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


4chan blocked by ISPs

4chan has been included in sites that ISPs are not blocking.

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/06/10/1819200

( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.176.49 (talk) 15:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
The NYT article the Slashdot blurb is based off of ran a correction a bit after it was printed that says that Sprint, TW, and Verizion are only purging websites on their own servers. I do not think 4chan is on any server owned by those three companies... -Jéské (v^_^v E pluribus unum) 17:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Death of /b/

Check 4chan. Is this for real? If so, it definitely needs to be added to the article. 68.231.214.169 (talk) 23:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

What are we supposed to be seeing? /b/ is down again. Whoopdy-doo. Howa0082 (talk) 23:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, moot posted a sticky saying he was sick of the cancer and on the other boards he posted a some place in Boston as a sticky. At the point where the meeting was supposed to start, /b/'s post number dropped dramatically. So yes, this could be for real. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.137.79 (talk) 00:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there any update on this?

And nothing of value was lost!, jokes aside... Might be down forever, but who knows... I'll always have /sp/ <3 anyway... until they close it ;< — chandler — 13:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Spoiler

/b/ is not old anymore. Updaet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.234.232.90 (talk) 14:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done--Kip Kip 14:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

4chan press page

I just found out 4chan has a press page at [9] maybe it could be used as reference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.228.227.129 (talk) 08:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

^_^! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.202.215.12 (talk) 04:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

4chan attacks sohh.com

4chan.org hackers attacked Sohh.com and brought the site down on June 27,2008. http://sarcasticdbag.com/2008/06/27/sohhcom-hacked-website-defaced-with-racist-content/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kick79 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, i've read about this, though everything i've read has said that sohh took the sit down themselves. another source here, i might add something about it to the article when i've read more about it[10]--Kip Kip 23:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Unless this was an organised raid posted on a 4chan image board then it doesnt count as 4chan users. And if we actually detailed every raid like this, the article would spiral out of control. --Robnubis (talk) 16:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

  1. ^ Julian Dibbell (2008-01-18). "Mutilated Furries, Flying Phalluses: Put the Blame on Griefers". Wired. Retrieved 2008-01-18. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:4chan/Archive_10&oldid=1079511862"