Talk:4chan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

MOOT'S Stance ON Raids[edit]

"The "no invasions" rule was added in late 2006, after /b/ users spent most of the summer "invading" Habbo Hotel." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8N9o8j_z7Q#t=2m1s - Moot Likes habbo raids but hates other raids — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.74.192.79 (talk) 23:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


Ambox outdated serious.svg Notice of obsolescence:
Community sanctions in this area of conflict have been superseded by an Arbitration Committee sanctions regime. As a result, this community sanctions-related page is now obsolete, is retained only for historical reference, and should not be modified. For more information about Arbitration Committee sanctions, see this page. For the specific Committee decision that rescinded or modified these community sanctions, see WP:ARBGG.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken 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.
 
WikiProject Websites / Computing  (Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
Featured article FA  Quality: FA-Class
 Mid  Importance: Mid
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (marked as Low-importance).
 
WikiProject Internet culture (Rated FA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia.
Featured article FA  Quality: FA-Class
 High  Importance: High
 
Featured article 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.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 14, 2009.


Rape Capital of the Internet[edit]

Alright, this needs to stop. While this discussion initially began as a borderline valid topic, it's fallen into meaningless discussion and unsubtle baiting. May I remind all editors and new visitors that Wikipedia is not a discussion forum, and that talk pages are not intended for general discussion on a topic, as they are for discussing improvements for the article only. If you would like to discuss how the internet is a sexual wild west that needs to be tamed, there are better places for it than here. --benlisquareTCE 10:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There needs to be a section on the sexual violence as it is both the source and the Mecca of internet violence. Any one who opposes will have rape threats sent to them and the site glorifies and encourages violence against women. If you don's believe me then look at at the page of Anita Sarkeesian (no I am not a feminist, I think they are just as sexist as the perverted trolls) but there is a problem that needs to be addressed and it is the biggest stick in the mud and that is saying a lot from a site that is like a failed state.--106.68.66.8 (talk) 08:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

While this is definitely a hot-button issue right now, stating that a website utilized by hundreds of thousands of people all as one collective hivemind commits actions that support violence against women is absolutely asinine. Further, there are certainly no reliable sources that support taking one particular side of this extremely polarizing and ongoing incident. Saimouer (talk) 11:54, 28 November 2014 (UTC}

Remember it is from that site that Rule 34 was invented and has been controversial from day one, which includes child pornography of both boys and girls.--106.68.66.8 (talk) 05:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

That is incorrect, "Rule 34" does not refer to underage pornography, it is instead the concept (for the lack of a better term) that pornography on every single subject exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Euphoria42 (talkcontribs) 01:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
That is factually incorrect. Child pornography is not permitted on 4chan. As stated by their (rather extensive) ruleset: "You will not upload, post, discuss, request, or link to anything that violates local or United States law." If this doesn't cover it enough, NSFW boards have this additional, far more specific rule: "Absolutely no underage content (under 18) of any sort. Violators will be issued permanent bans." [1] Beyond this, the phrase "Rape capital of the internet" is a highly editorialized statement that violates Wikipedia's neutral POV policy. There has never been a case of "rape" occurring on 4chan. Further, Rule 34, however distasteful, does not refer to underage pornography. Rule 34, as stated and sourced in Wikipedia's Rule 34 article [2] is a phenomenon by which pornography for every conceivable topic exists. It is an anecdote which is sometimes applied to drawings of TV, video game, and movie characters by pornographic artists. Saimouer (talk) 18:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Ask anyone about the site, they are certain to say something negative about the site without balancing it out with anything positive. It started off with the sexualisation of anime girls that are under aged and anyone from any other site who threatens rape admits to be invading from 4chan.--58.7.49.228 (talk) 07:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

What is "internet violence" supposed to mean? Google gives me the following definitions for "violence":

  • behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.

"Internet violence" of that sort cannot possibly exist; it is impossible to apply physical force via the Internet.

  • strength of emotion or an unpleasant or destructive natural force.

There is nothing "natural" about the Internet, and while the Internet can be used to convey emotions, it has no emotion of its own.

  • the unlawful exercise of physical force or intimidation by the exhibition of such force.

Again, physical force is an impossibility.

I am forced to conclude that by "internet violence" we are talking about the forcefulness of emotion expressed on the Internet. Aside from being rather over-the-top rhetoric for such a thing, it seems to me that it could equally well describe, say, the reaction (conveyed via the Internet) to a rape threat taken seriously. 76.69.75.41 (talk) 17:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

References

Watch AngryJoeShow with the episode Top 10 Gaming Controversies of 2013! at number 3, he mentions the rape and death threats to Anita Sarkessian and he said are from 4chan.--124.148.192.42 (talk) 08:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Seriously 4chan and all the porn on the internet needs to go. It is the root for all the rape threats, homophobic slurs and politically incorrect bigotry. I don't care if it takes ten years, the internet is like the wild west and needs to be tamed like the wild west. There is nothing redeemable about the site, nothing and it only supports the patriarchy with an iron fist, encourages violence against women and children and loves blaming the victim just for challenging any stereotype ever known to exist. --106.68.23.249 (talk) 09:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2015[edit]

Hello,I just sent this message to suggest that in the background, erase the part that says: "/a/ – Anime/General" and "/b/ – Anime/Random" Because the sources just explain that existed before: "/a/ – Anime/Manga" and "/b/ – Random"

Thank you for your attention

Hostandress (talk) 16:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Pictogram voting question.svg Question: @Hostandress: Is this the text you would like to change:

"When he first created the website, it had only two boards: "/a/ – Anime/General" and "/b/ – Anime/Random"; over time more boards were created, and /b/ was eventually renamed to simply "/b/ – Random" "? Can you clarify why you'd like it changed? I'm having difficulty understanding; it seems to address your concern, no?  B E C K Y S A Y L E 19:09, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 23:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Gamergate[edit]

The reliable sources do not discuss TFYC as a causative factor in Gamergate, and dragging anonymous, speculative and unsupported allegations against a living person into this article is simply not on. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Please state which "reliable sources" you are referring to, and what edits you are claiming to be "speculative and unsupported allegations". On a related note, I don't see why Gamergate needs its own section on this page: 4chan's link with the subject seems trivial. Greedo8 19:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
As per the directly cited reliable source and dozens of others, the allegations laid against Zoe Quinn which launched Gamergate are false, the end, period. It is a violation of the biographies of living persons policy to paint Zoe Quinn in a false light. If the word "false" is again removed, I intend to seek sanctions against the removing editor under the Gamergate community sanctions. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Please remain civil, threats are not helpful to anyone. You still have not shown any sources with evidence that prove they are false. As editors of Wikipedia, we are to remain neutral until such evidence is sourced. Greedo8 18:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia's coverage of Gamergate is in the news today.[1]. My two cents is that some people are getting far too worked up over this.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but that's not how Wikipedia works. We don't demand "evidence" from reliable sources, we simply republish what reliable sources say. Please read WP:5P and WP:V for more information. If you think the whole section is undue weight and doesn't belong, I have no objection to just removing it wholesale. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:12, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
If the sources don't state where they got their information, then their reliability comes into question. The sources cited are dubious at best already, even without this issue. Greedo8 18:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
If you wish to contest the reliability of The Telegraph, I suggest you take it up on the WP:RSN. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
The directly cited reliable source does not assert that any particular allegation(s) launched Gamergate. I checked. It is very circumspect about this matter. 76.69.75.41 (talk) 17:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

moot's resignation[edit]

Today moot made a news post saying that he's resigning as administrator for 4chan, the article could probably do with updating once some real sources come along. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 16:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

International Business Times --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 16:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Is it still appropriate to call him the owner (as in the info box)? 09I500 (talk) 10:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Nature of accusations[edit]

Source Review of GamerGate Allegations[edit]

"primordial soup-stains ... digital plaguepits"[edit]

Could we get a better quote than Tom Mendelsohn's "as with most of the worst things on the internet, this whole palaver can be traced back to the primordial soup-stains 4chan and Reddit, two digital plaguepits of particularly virulent woman-hatred"? The partisan tone and language does not seem befitting of an encyclopedia. The article is somewhat of an opinion piece - it is under Independent Voices - Comment. Mendelsohn is an online student editor. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 07:07, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, if you have a better quote, or for that matter, a balancing quote, please suggest it. But I would oppose simply deleting it. I suppose that 4chan itself has a "tone" that would seem out of place at, let's say, Encyclopedia Britannica, but the quote describes 4chan, and 4chan of course is the subject of this page. I think it is actually a pretty mainstream opinion of 4chan, and we do not delete content merely because it is critical. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Anita Sarkeesian[edit]

Special criticism of rape threats should be mentioned for Feminist Frequency. Trolls have attacked her on tumbler, threatening her of murder, forced prostitution and rape. Its not enougth that they antagonise Youtube, they must harass feminist on their own site for not wanting to be sex slaves.--106.68.23.249 (talk) 11:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

4chan is not the sole originator of all trolls and harassment on the internet. Unless you have sources for the entirety/majority of 4chans several hundred thousand members all agreeing in their desire to make her a "sex slave"? This is baseless accusations at best. IrohSei (talk) 03:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Then if that is the case, the site's trolling center should be coupled with Reddit and yes, I was referring to the Gamergate controversy.--106.68.23.249 (talk) 13:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

"False accusations" against Zoe Quinn[edit]

Change to accusations. If you're trying to be bias you're doing a good job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.65.75 (talk) 18:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Well discussed already. — Strongjam (talk) 19:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)