Talk:4chan/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 18

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)

Reliability doesn't go up the chain. We say fox is reliable. If fox interviews some shady source, we should use our heads and reconsider that quote, but it doesn't mean they aren't reliable. We assume (lawl) they vet every source and stand by every comment. Most of the time that works. Protonk (talk) 17:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)