Category:Abortion in France and Talk:4chan: Difference between pages

This page is not a forum for general discussion about 4chan. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about 4chan at the Reference desk.

	4chan is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones Date Process Result November 14, 2004 Articles for deletion Kept February 16, 2006 Articles for deletion Kept August 11, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed August 19, 2008 Good article nominee Listed September 6, 2008 Peer review Reviewed September 23, 2008 Featured article candidate Promoted Current status: Featured article

Internet culture FA‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Internet culture To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles Expand : Pick an article from here or here Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images Stubs : All stubs are located here Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}} See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention

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)

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)

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)

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.

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

http://4chanarchive.org/brchive/dspl_thread.php5?thread_id=78418750&x=Walmart+Photo+Center+raid#78424781 Should anything be said about this? Gravelz (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

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 http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/the_way_we_live/article4173635.ece 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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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?