Talk:Cyber-bullying

This article was nominated for deletion on 6 October 2005. The result of the discussion was Keep. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

Archives
April 2007 April 2010

Removed False Information

I removed the line in the Pop Culture section about Shrdderman Rules. I've seen the movie, and as someone on the said article pointed out, is NOT about revenge or cyberbulling. But rather about justice. Jediman09 (talk) 21:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

"Women and Cyberbullying"

What is the point of this section, and why is there just a single random case noted? Is there something particular about women and this phenomena? SOmething special about this case? Seems arbitrary. 173.89.31.45 (talk) 23:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The info about its classification & nomenclature....

• http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&newwindow=1&q=allintitle%3A+cyber-bullying+gov&btnG=Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=
• http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&newwindow=1&q=allintitle%3A+cyber+bullying+gov&btnG=Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=

--222.64.223.77 (talk) 03:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+cyber+bullying+defining&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0
• http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+cyber+bullying+define&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

--222.64.223.77 (talk) 03:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+cyber-bullying+define&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

• http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+cyber-bullying+defining&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

It seems that this is a new area which needs to be deeply studied and which includes computer virus outbreak --222.64.223.77 (talk) 03:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of video from lead

I have conflicted feelings about this edit [1], which removed a video from the lead section. On the one hand, I can partially agree with the edit, on the grounds that we might not want to be a conduit for such material, but on the other hand, I think that it may be appropriate to include it on this page. What do other editors think? --Tryptofish (talk) 16:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Good call on deleting it. Leave it out. It added nothing encyclopedic to the article. Toddst1 (talk) 17:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the video is okay on the article; because it represents an example of Cyber-Bullying. I say this as the uploader of the file; and I think it is illustrative. :-) --Diego Grez ^{let's talk} 16:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I continue to speak here as someone who has mixed feelings, and can see both sides of the issue. Diego: can you explain in more detail why you feel that the video adds something of encyclopedic value? In other words, what does it add that is not available from the text, and what does it add that would outweigh concerns that it might be gratuitous? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response. The video adds something that pictures cannot, it's a clear video-example of cyber bulling. A friend of mine recorded this 5-minutes long video (although I cut it off after Commons' admins requested me to do so), that has been used to harass him. I reiterate, in addition that the article seems very boring without illustrations, the video will provide a clear example to the fellow readers and editors. --Diego Grez ^{¡aprende a llorar!} 01:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Boring? It's an encyclopedia, not entertainment. Toddst1 (talk) 04:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer, no problem with the time. I'm afraid that I'm going to come down on the side of not including the video. I appreciate the good faith intentions of presenting it, but absent some notable aspect of cyber-bullying that the video can illustrate but the text cannot, I do not think that readers need to see a specific instance of the phenomenon in order to gain an understanding of it. A case can be made that it is either pointy (as in saying: look how awful this is), or providing an audience to a bully who doesn't deserve it. Also, there is no reason to regard this particular incident as being notable. Sorry, but I would say leave it deleted. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Jessi Slaughter

i want to point out that just because the article has been deleted, doesnt automatically mean that any mention of the incident must be deleted. I will not revert, as there are blp issues to consider, but events dont have to have their own article to be mentioned on WP.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I saw the addition and then deletion of that edit, and I have an open mind about it. I agree with the principle of what you say: that the WP:N requirements for a sentence within a page are not the same as those for an entire page. On the other hand, the edit that was deleted here was unsourced. Is there a good secondary source to support the material being mentioned here briefly? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe this [2], from CBS News? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I've read around the Wiki a little more, and gotten more familiar with the BLP concerns here. I now would be reluctant to put any material about this on the page, until some more time passes and we can see how independent sources view the topic, because I think the issues of potential harm to a minor are just too large. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it should be included, but current consensus says no, so i will abide by it. however, if it gains more notability, it could be up for discussion again, at least as a single sentence. I have yet to read a really well thought out argument for summarily excluding it for blp reasons, but i am definitely open to one.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 22:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

That's very fair, I think. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Cyber Harassment and Cyber Bullying are not the same thing

They are different names for the same thing. Whether the victim is a child or adult, the pain of being bullied feels the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oilstone (talk • contribs) 17:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

This topic should be kept seperate. 'Cyber Bullying' refers to bullying via technology between MINORS, or initiated by MINORS. When adults become involved it is no longer referred to as 'Cyber Bullying', but rather as 'Cyber Harassment' or 'Cyber Stalking'. Although 'Cyber Bullying' and 'Cyber Harassment' are similar in nature, they both relate to different age groups and can involve different means of bullying or harassment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.183.77.110 (talk) 10:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

A citation for that difference would be needed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

To harass and to bully is similar, to cause emotional stress and psychological damage to the person on the other end. Also in need to be addressed is abuse of power by moderators and site owners against individuals, but it is hard to draw the line on what is typical moderation of a message board versus an urge to make the offending member a target and not only to ban, but ridicule a member endlessly and the act of "MISTing" or excessive trolling combined with harrassment and bullying, to make the banned member feel "very sorry" for his or her offenses. Site admins. and moderators should know the differences between doing their jobs and intentionally attacking a member, thus an act on an abuse of mod. powers. + 71.102.11.193 (talk) 02:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

That comment doesn't seem directed to improving the article, but I suppose I shouldn't revert. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Trolling.

Isn't Trolling the more common well-known term for cyberbullying? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.123.254 (talk) 09:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily. While some trolling could be considered cyberbullying, quite often the target of trolling is not a person, but media such as a video game, movie, etc. For example, someone starts a thread with "OMGZ AVATAR SUCKED SO HARD", then proceeds to refuse to actually give their reasoning or have an intelligent discussion. Xaphnir (talk) 14:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Rename article

In my opinion, it must be cyberbullying, not ciber-bullying, like another words with cyber prefix. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Internetsinacoso (talk • contribs) 12:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

No I don't think so. It is spelled this way in English. In Spanish it can be called Ciberbullying, but not in English. --Diego Grez (talk) 16:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

In English, it must be spelled with a "y". It can be spelled either with or without a hyphen. Because the unhyphenated spelling is a redirect to this page, I do not think that matters. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

{{edit semi-protected}} I request permission to make the following additions to this article:

Section 4: As of July 2010, 30 states have passed laws making electronic harassment illegal, but only 6 specifically define the term "cyberbullying." 29 states require schools to draft their own anti-cyberbullying rules. The Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act, which would impose prison sentences of up to 2 years against those who use "electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior," is currently pending in Congress

Section 7: February 12, 2010: Boston Mayor Thomas Menino meets with community leaders, city officials, and Boston Public Schools students to begin a cyberbullying awareness campaign. Possible measures discussed at the meeting included letters from the mayor to social networking sites and parents calling for action against cyberbullying, requiring city employees who work with youth to undergo additional training on how to deal with bullying, a hotline for victims to safely report bullying, and an anti-cyberbullying PSA.

Section 13: Cyberbullying.info: site "aimed at students 10-14 years of age" to help them learn more about cyberbullying and what to do about it. CyberSmart! Cyberbullying Awareness Program: a series of teacher resources presented in conjunction with the National Association of School Psychologists Cmills88 (talk) 14:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I have doubts about cyberbullying.us being a reliable source, even for interpretation of something verifiable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Having viewed the cyberbullying.us website more closely, I understand your doubts. Also, I cannot find any better single source of this information and I do not know how many sources I would have to use to properly verify this information. I would, therefore, like to limit my request to the edits I have proposed for sections 7 and 13. -- Cmills88 (talk) 21:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 68.204.8.238, 6 June 2011

I want to point out that cyberharassment in the workplace is not simply cyber stalking as defined in the Wikipage. Cyberharassment against adults (and corporations) also include online defamation, tort interference, defacing, etc - see: Workman, M. (2010). A behaviorist perspective on corporate harassment online: Validation of a theoretical model of psychological motives. Computers & Security, 29, 831-839. I think the page should be modified to reflect this.

68.204.8.238 (talk) 10:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The lead of the article sums it up fine:Cyber-bullying is "the use of information and communication technologies to support deliberate, repeated, and hostile behavior by an individual or group, that is intended to harm others"." What you are suggesting is unnecessary disambiguation. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 6:38pm • 08:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit reques, 19 September 2011

on facebook there are a huge amount of cyber bullying. quite alot of this is because it is easily spread. also it can be used for pedo's and other people to bully others, by typing to them and giving them grief over the facebook site

09waringm (talk) 17:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I imagine that this may be true, but it's not clear what should be changed on the page. We would need a source to back up any claim that Facebook plays an important role in the phenomenon. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

one more language: hebrew

this is the link for the article: http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%AA_%D7%A8%D7%A9%D7%AA I suggest you publish it on the side. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Segalzeyalz (talk • contribs) 21:52, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 14 November 2011

Gullable (talk) 11:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

N Not done Zidanie5 (talk) 12:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Copyvio claim

These edits have claimed a copyvio problem with http://www.cyberbullyinglaws.net/cyber_bullying_definition.html

• 23:02, 28 August 2011
• 06:21, 5 December 2011

It looks like Wikipedia was the source of at least some of the copy/pasted text; see diffs below.

Origin of "disclose victims' personal data":

• 06:58, 2 May 2007 may publish personal contact information
• 12:07, 24 February 2008 may disclosing victims' personal data
• 12:13, 24 February 2008 may disclose victims' personal data

Origin of "while the behavior is identified by the same definition in adults":

• 07:36, 1 October 2008 although the identifying behavior is the same ...
• 07:41, 1 October 2008

It seems likely that the copyvio was not by Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 07:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Revision of article before the copyvio tag was added: 05:55, 4 December 2011

My notes above show how two pieces of text were developed at Wikipedia. The above diffs show that it is extremely unlikely that the specified text was copied into Wikipedia.

I just had a closer look at the cyberbullyinglaws.net page. The third line contains '"embarrass another person."[' where the '[' is a link. That link is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyber-bullying#cite_note-1">.

Searching the page for "</ref>" shows another location where a quick cleanup after copying from Wikipedia was incomplete. Johnuniq (talk) 03:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

More notes:

This article is reported at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2011 December 5.

This version of the article is close to what would have been copied from Wikipedia: 14:05, 29 April 2010

Note that the cyberbullyinglaws.net article uses blue text (with no links) for items such as "threats" and "hate speech"—in the Wikipedia article those items are links to other articles. There are a lot of examples of this and it is inconceivable that cyberbullyinglaws.net made that blue text, then an editor copied it to Wikipedia and replaced each of the blue items with wikilinks. Obviously the text originated at Wikipedia, and was copied to the other website: the blue font was kept but the links to Wikipedia were removed. Johnuniq (talk) 04:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your investigation and careful analysis. I agree. The Wikipedia article history shows incremental edits by Wikipedia editors over time which appear to be now contained within the "source" website. Therefore, I have removed the copyvio template, restored the article to its latest revision, and added a backwards copyvio template to the top of this page. I am closing the report at Copyright Problems. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 21:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 January 2012

Plzzz put more info bout c-bullyin i need it 4 my report k thx

99.228.101.118 (talk) 16:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 17:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)