Talk:Internet forum

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

WikiProject Computing (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Internet (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the internet 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Former featured article candidate Internet forum is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Administrator Abuse[edit]

The page lacks a section on abuse of power by moderators. Where an admin ban a user for disagreeing with them, disagreeing with another admin, disagreeing with an admin's friend, breaking a nonexistant rule, asking why the admin only enforces rules when they feel like it... This kind of thing is hardly uncommon. Anyone else think it deserves a mention? Or a redirect to where it's already discussed?ANTIcarrot (talk) 13:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You have a good point however this is untrue. On some (maybe even many) forums it is true, buit on more community like forums it is untrue. It is worth a mention however there needs to be a note that this is only true on 'some' forums. Stealth (talk) 13:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Why on earth would it require a full section? Regardless, feel free to add anything you can source that strengthens the article. The current format is much more definition-focused than it ought to be. MrZaiustalk 04:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
As someone who has used Forums since their very beginning, Administrator/Moderator Abuse is present to some degree in most Forums. The role of Moderator attracks the sort of personality who is downtrodden in their real world life, but as a Moderator, can be the one who bullies others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Posts instantly seen[edit]

Anyone knows why the link to was taken down? Is there a rule against sites like mine?

The last sentence in Internet_forum#Comparison_with_other_web_applications says:

Another difference is that you do not instantly see posts on forums, while in chat rooms or instant messaging, the posts made are instantly seen.

Huh? Either this is poorly worded or it's wrong. Any forum I've ever participated in shows posts instantly. Am I missing something? Since it's unreferenced I'm removing this sentence, but add it back in if I'm wrong, or it's just misworded. --jjron (talk) 08:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I think they mean that you have to refresh the page if AJAX is not used. ffm 12:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Should there be a section in which it talks about wikipedia?[edit]

I think so, because wikipedia is like a huge talking place. Although its purpose is to build an encyclopedia, there are some communication on talk pages, user pages, e-mail, and the reference desk. Yes, wikipedia is also a forum. Before wikipedia, I never chatted online. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the need. Besides there's enough information on Wikipedia at —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Forum directories and rankings[edit]

My contribution at 20:50, 28 July 2008, was reverted – [1]. I think many people can come to Wikipedia, at the Internet forum article, trying to find help when they search for a forum that they need. So I think my contribution was very usefull and not in violation of any of Wikipedia's politics. If it's considered that the way I presented the information is not good, I am nicely asking for advice for how to make it better. I think the reader should be helped to see not only what a forum is, but also what forums exist out there. thanks Ark25 (talk) 12:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It's "policies". The one you are refering to is WP:NOT, and wikipedia is not a collection of links elsewhere, it is not a directory. It would be acceptable to link to DMOZ, but what you added appeared to be spam. Moreover, such things belong in the "External links" section, per WP:MoS. ffm 13:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I have added it to the external links section, thanks for advice. Ark25 (talk) 14:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I will vote here for directories, let create another article of Wikipedia about directories of Forums, to collect most famous directories. I come here, after a 20 years of internet surfing, I'm not interesting in definitions and engines, I'm interesting in directories, in forums that really cool. (talk) 09:15, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Forum directories and rankings[edit]

I can not see how a link to a forum list, sorted by the number of posts can be considered spam, especialy when the link it's placed to "external links" section. Please try to understand, that many people are coming here to find the best forum for them. And of course a list of forums, sorted by some criteria, will help them. For example, if I need a forum about digital photo, I will look on that list ([2]) and most probably, I would try first the number 36 (DP review) and not 2113 (Photo Camel) simply because a larger forum with more users can help me better to get answers for my question than a small forum. Wikipedia articles are designed to help people understand things and to help people to find the informations they need, right? If you know another list with forums sorted by number of posts and users, please add it. You removed also a link to a specific forum (added by someone else), and that is ok, but a link to a list of forums - defenately can't be spam. Ark25 (talk) 17:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there should be something in the article about forum ranking. Big-boards (as you mentioned) is one such site. Another site that I have been following is , but it's been under development for a long time, and not sure it has so many boards yet. In general, claims about being the largest or most active boards in a certain category (e.g. in a certain language) seem to be hard to prove as the tools to do so are still lacking. I think that is worth mentioning in the article. TheLastNinja (talk) 10:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

When is a forum not a forum?[edit]

I have read the guidelines to see if the following is pertinent or acceptable here and believe the statement

'Non-disruptive statements of opinion on internal Wikipedia policies and guidelines may be made on user pages, as they are relevant to the current and future operation of the project.'

means that it is. I came here looking for a definition of a 'forum', as an external link I added to the American Express article was removed as being 'links normally to be avoided' which reads:

"Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), USENET newsgroups or e-mail lists."

Being a forum, the site falls under discussion forums/groups, and may not be linked.

However, I see under the discussion above 'Posts instantly seen'. --jjron says 'Any forum I've ever participated in shows posts instantly.' This may have been true before the great spam explosion of 2006 but since then any forum I have been involved with, no longer posts instantly as it is too open to abuse, with automated posting every 20 seconds bombing such pages into non existence. So now the question arises, when is a forum not a forum?

Also, I have to ask the question, as I was always taught that rules are for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools. The Wikipedia guidelines say 'links normally to be avoided' not 'may not be used. Surely there are cases where it is in the interest of the article?

As the proposal was that American Express is a very powerful organization with no discussion of its practices on its own website, a link to a 'forum' or a collection of users letters giving their experiences of the organization, would be a valuable contribution to the article, which seems to be very one sided. I also note that a statement made almost 4 months ago that 'Wikipedia is also a forum', with which I agree to a point, either means that Wikipedia itself is breaking its own guidelines every time anyone links to Wikipedia internally or that the link to could then be linked within the article itself rather than being relegated to an external links section? I see that the American Express article has an external link in the first paragraph. (I for some reason, was under the impression that external sites could only be in the external links section.)

As I have now read the guidelines further, it is a moot point as I cannot post the link on another of the criterion, but I do think that for the benefit of the whole and as a matter of principle, it is something which might be discussed.

The guidelines also say

'Editors and administrators alike should seek to uphold these rules only when doing so would produce a better result for the encyclopedia, never simply because they are "rules". Insisting that something must (or cannot) be done simply because of policy is a form of wikilawyering.

I did ask for a reason why it was not a relevant link. Thank you for your explanation, Carl.bunderson, however it doesn't explain why it is not extremely relevant and why it does not add a great deal to the article itself.

If the rules prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, you should ignore them. Disagreements should be resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures.

I think I understand the reasoning behind the guideline to not include social networking sites such as MySpace etc, as every single page on there would no doublt end up linked from Wikipedia, however, I fail to understand why bona fide and relevent 'forums' or whatever the definition of what and others like it, is. They have to be regarded as sources of opinion on a given subject, if not a source, often, of fact. It is a fact that a number of people have felt strongly enough about the American Express service that they have taken time and effort to find a place where they can share their experiences. Is not information, living and growing, not what Wikipedia is all about? MaybeBoo (talk) 00:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Why do WikiNazi's keep deleting the section on Forum Nazism?[edit]

I wonder why. I really do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TcheQ (talkcontribs) 07:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Because we do not allow personal views (see WP:NOR and WP:NPOV), and that material cannot be verified. Thus the "Forum nazis" section is deleted. Vivio TestarossaTalk Who 06:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Rewriting of article[edit]

The original article[3] seemed to me too unfamiliar for the casual reader and more importantly doesn't offer much help to someone who is comepletly unfamiliar with what a forum is. Some parts also seemed to presume prior knowledge and express noticible points rather then information, description or definition.

In any case, I've tried to expan and also reorganised a large part of it. I believe I covered most of the tangible issues. The social issues I've described shortly but didn't go into any detail about the language used, slang, habits etc etc (weather more then there is should even be in this article directly is probably debatable)

I've added rudementary references, and linked when it was apropriate. I think the article is still missing heavily on examples and references to help the reader understand. (it's a lot more time consuming then a more precise and exact topic to find references -.-)

I've added a few images,

  • (already available) image of phpBB's ACP
  • image of phpBB's MCP (examples used inside the image)
  • image a phpBB forum with some threads (examples used inside the image)
  • image of phpBB thread (examples used inside the image)

Will need to make some illustrations for some of the parts later but this should cover the main "what is forum" issues.

I'm contemplating of adding images of actual forums in action to demonstrate how flame wars or other behaviour looks, though it might be a bad idea, so I won't until I hear some more opinions on it.

I've avoided adding a slang section and mentioned mostly what are commonly used term when I found myself in context. I'm leaning towards avoiding adding any unnecesary urban dictionary lists of words, at least not directly to the article.

I've expanded the opening somewhat, and rephrased the first sentece so even someone vaguely familiar with the Internet's chit-chat systems would understand the concept. I also think the initial version was too technical. Kept it as a second sentece. The extra names I removed, I honestly can't a reference for those. For example, "fora", can't even find a use, and it being the latin plural doesn't mean it's in use for internet forums. The second part of the opening I expanded to no end later so I got rid of that. The second paragraph is tricky. Currently I've moved it under History, but I can't find any reference to suggest what is said is even remotly true. Seems to me like just random speculation just because the names are similar. That year is probably from thin air as well, judging from the way it's phrased.

I scraped all the sections in favor of reordreing to a more "what is?" order rather then a "this, that" order

For the Membership and anonymity I've removed the first paragraphs and expanded on all the ideas there later in their own section. The 3rd paragraph I see a few problems. First the first sentece, the one requiring cititions, appears to be original reserch. Secondly it goes far too out of line comparing, more then half the time it's talking about other systems other then the forum system.

The Administrators and moderators. Fist paragraph expanded, so it was scraped. The second paragraph apears to start with some original research. I don't remember ever seing a rate moderator in a forum I've been, and youtube and such, while you might consider like forums, their not exactly true forums. Wordfilter and such, is availble to moderators but it's just one of the many, and usually only goes as far as one or two simple words that in the end easily can be tricked by users. It would also be far too much information about administrators to expand to such extent. (the ideas of including information on how themes and usergroups privilages are set and work and help out, to just name a few would be too much IMHO) I've added some introductory information on what a moderator/administrator can do so the reader can get a sense what it means to be a moderator and such, but left it at that. (so the original section was pretty much scrapped in the end =/)

I turned what was features into History, since that's what it sounded to me anyway. Used features to talk about the common elements the read might try to find in a article, since it's about forums. Focused on the forum specific stuff, didn't expand much. I could of made them lists but I think this makes them much more accessible, also I internally linked everywhere I could. (still some more linking to do)

Comparison with other web applications kept as is.

Forum netiquette, expanded. Didn't keep the title since I felt it was a original term, just called it rules and policies on forums since that what people seem to always call them on forums. Expanded on the procedures and everything else, since I think the aim of the original title was to present the social order and way of thinking. (probably need to add more refs there)

Also added some more sections to cover the rest the issues. (but talking about it would probably make this post longer then the article o_O)

I've proofed read it, the wording and senteces make sense at least to me. I also spell checked it, although I'm more then sure there's at least one typo in there. I referenced wikipedia's 5 or so documents detailing style and other guidlines so it should be mostly ok, although I'm sure there are problems with it.

[my] TODO list: (feel free to help out)

  • add illustrations for different post layout
  • complete references (the second half at least needs more attention)
  • add examples
  • add more notes
  • add more internal (#heading style) and extenral (other wiki articles) links
  • add more references for the opening senteces (probably expand the wording a little)

7ghost (talk) 21:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Too Much PhpBB3![edit]

All screens in this sections are from phpBB3. What about other solutions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

  • It's because other solutions don't seem to have a lot of good screens, at least nothing uploaded to MediaWiki. I've only added 3 of the pics 2 were already available. phpBB was just too convinient. Taking screens of other appliacations might seem more complicated at least with licensing issues. I do understand the point, it's perhaps doing phpBB too much publicity, the article should have a little more diversity. Still what do you suggest as other applications? vBulletin, phpBB, Envision Power Board (used to be popular), Simple Machine Forum are among the only really popular ones. Diversity and originality usually just comes in the form of skins. 7ghost (talk) 08:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
    • So lets think. This article is about internet forums, or "internet forums powered by phpbb3"? Look to references: half of links are about... phpbb3 (and another half about vB). This article will look much better, when there will be references to other scripts, or none. Also in "See also" there are direct links to phpbb3, vB and IP.B (talk) 22:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
  • It's about internet forums powered by web applications. There is no set in stone standard and no book has been published that treats the subject (or I just haven't heard of any). Forums are in essence web applications, I find it normal that the word of the people who've made such application is as good as it gets when it comes to definitions and explanations of the concepts. The only reason why PhpBB and vBulletin are so common place in the article (even though they are not directly mentioned to the reader in the body) is because the developers of those two had material that could be referenced. They either gave the definition or spoke of the concept in the faq, have some major online documentation etc. There is no reason not to add more, but I just didn't know of any other like that. By all means I'm most certainly not against adding more references to the article. The links in the See also section should be categorized at some point so the reader know where they're intended to go. Currently I fail to see your point about the vBulletin and PhpBB links. They are both internal, they link to the wikipedia articles. I don't think it's wrong to point the reader to articles on some implementations. At this point I'm personally against having a actual implementation section with tables and comparisons and such. 7ghost (talk) 20:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a wiki, feel free to fix it youself by uploading other screenshots. ffm 21:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Or in Rules and policies on forums[edit]

Vivio Testarossa seems to have marked as original search either the word or the entire example. I personally can't really tell with placement used.

If the accusation refers to the sentence itself then I don't see a real problem with it. It simply states "these are sometimes included" its not intentended as "these are always included" or "these are all included". I know the phrasing may not be the best but extending the sentece seem awkward and unecesary.

The items in the list themselvs are not citations, and really are not meant as citations for clarity reasons. Excepting the "No multiple accounts" and "Do not resurrect dead threads" all others can use the phpBB's default TOS as reference material (see 3rd paragraph). But I've avoided using such references which spin around and require too much explanation to why they are a reference. The one TOS I linked is the one from their community which is identical to the one they distribute but really not the template itself. I would really need to link to the template but theres no real way to do that; so I avoided linking at all. The real heart of the issue is that the portion questioned of WP:Or really only requires common sense, in essence it is stating something similar to "the sun is warm". The other two are almost imposible to reference properly (with outh just giving a milion examples, which would really be WP:Or). Although perhaps the first ("No multiple accounts") should really read as "No [using] multiple accounts" since that's closer to the common meaning.

I understand Vivio Testarossa point of view, but that part was just a example. The topic in question also has little to no centrelised standards or commonly accepted guidlines to go by. A example is neither fact nor a claim. Wikidias policies are also meant to be treated more as guidlines rather then a set of iron rules. I really don't see how that list and the short sentence preceding it constitutes anything but a simple example, and thus I don't see how it requires extensive reference (i.e. WP:Or) so I'll just call WP:UCS and WP:IAR on it. An alternative to using it would be to simply go to a random forum and take a screenshot of their rules.

(I've reverted Vivio Testarossa for now; also slightly altered the sentece to better illustrate neutrality)

7ghost (talk) 13:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Conflict with the Wikipedia entry for Bulletin board system[edit]

The first line currently states: "An Internet forum, or message board, is a bulletin board system in the form of a discussion site."

Yet, at [4], the current entry's third paragraph reads: "In recent years, the term BBS is sometimes incorrectly used to refer to any online forum or message board."

Only one of these can be true.

Philip sheldrake (talk) 12:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

As I understood it when I was researching for the article the definition of forum used by vbulletin doesn't refer to a "bulletin board system" but a "bulletin board system" (I see no reason to believe the more sophisticated version was the intended one). I've seen the link "corrected" to bulletin board system two times already and am contemplating rephrasing it to something different like "bulletin board mechanism" or something like that. I'm of the opinion the term association is wrong but I don't see currently a trusted source explaining clearly why it's wrong (currently there's just the one phrase in the bulletin board system article). 7ghost (talk) 19:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe there is a real difference in terms communication functions, aside from technology aspects. This seems simply a progression of the same concept through different technologies with new capabilities at each step: bulletin boards (physical world, cork board, paper notes and clips) ==> BBS (Electronic, dialup/network, menus, text based) ==> Forum (WWW, Internet, HTML etc.) To define or claim a term for exclusivity doesn't seem appropriate in the forward direction. Kbrose (talk) 02:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
The difference is in the meaning. If you reference the physical world equivalent that's just leverage for the explanation, but if you reference the BBS (in the context of the first paragraph) it's easily taken as: "forums are a deviation of the BBS" (as I read it). It's not wrong (perhaps) but it's both a gray area and a contradiction to the Bulletin Board System article. There's the option of removing the links but then it's up to the reader to take one of the either. Doing a search in the article I noticed there's also a reference to BBS in the History section. I suppose that's what Philip was taking about. As I see it that's where the articles current WP:OR accusations come from (i.e the dates etc). I haven't found anything to prove or disprove the claims there thus far, but that section is something that should be dealt with somehow. 7ghost (talk) 03:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I rephrased this once again, because one wouldn't refer to a bulletin board as a 'system' as the article read. That was my original reason to move 'system' inside the wiki link to refer to the BBS article. I believe the current form is also useful to refer the reader to earlier forms of this concept of public display or sharing of information. Kbrose (talk) 03:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The positive side of Flame wars[edit]

The following concerning the "positive side of Flame wars" brought up in recent edits. Quoting addition:

In addition, flame wars are often warranted as a part of competition set forth by specific threads designed for said flames. In many cases these threads and posts are voted on and winners established, generally based on language usage, form and uniqueness of each particular flame as compared to other threads and posts.

Stated reason for addition is as follows: Adding this addition is necessary; the article without this edit shows flaming in a bad light only, which does not encompass the entire definition of a "flame" and therefore is not accurate.

When we are talking about a flames and flame wars the idea given by the most common reliable sources is that it is "the hostile and insulting interaction between Internet users"[5] [6] [7]. This addition is a variation/deviation. It's actually not a flame war at all, just a formal forum game with the participants playing hostile for fun (it even presents itself as such: "[...] these threads and posts are voted on and winners established,").

Doing a simple search on the net does not bring any mention to prove this is a widespread phenomenon common on hundreds of boards with participation of countless users (the main hit barely had over 50 members total). This, like other forum games, do not warrant mention since they are too much of a rarity. If there is the need to mention it then a better option would be to place the position either in the Flaming (Internet) or otherwise create a new section such as Forum games (Internet).

Tacking other articles as example (i.e the War article doesn't list the positive side of computer games, the IRC article doesn't list games, and so on) I call WP:IINFO and WP:OR. Please bring some citations or some sort of more conclusive endorsment to this piece of information. (currently too many reasons against it, addition reverted)

7ghost (talk) 20:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thread section incomplete or wrong?[edit]

I always understood a threaded discussion to be one where a discussion could fork, and one could use a hierarchical view to ignore some subset of the discussion, or at least to follow the discussion of particular points, as seen in most mailing lists, and NTTP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Deleted data retrive[edit]

How it is possible deleted data Retrieved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unoohani (talkcontribs) 04:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Use of the word "troll"[edit]

I think it may be useful to discuss the history of the word "troll."

Early in web history, only a decade a ago, the word "trawl" was commonly used. A trawl is a strategy to elicit responses based on a specific contentious statement. The "trawler" is not genuine, is not trying to promote honest discussion; the "trawler" is looking for a fight. I saw the term used when describing police looking to get an arrest for some illegal or "gray area" crime, such as illicit sex.

Then I suddenly noticed the word "troll" and assumed that it was a misspelling of the term "trawl." In context it seemed to be used as a disguised predatory strategy designed to make genuine posters to appear to be predators.

When I saw this, I thought back on my knowledge of the term "troll." The most important reference I can recall of the use of the word when making predatory and prejudiced attacks against the homeless in Southern California when I was there as an offshore oil rig scuba diver. "Troll busters" would make often lethal attacks against already weak homeless victims: a capital crime. These "troll busters" were generally elitist white separatists, in California universities, and from rich families, as I recall.

My belief is that the use of the term "troll" is a corruption of a more legitimate word "trawl," and to extend this with my experiences, I believe that that the corruption of the word is a de-evolution of the Information Society into a culture of the predatory elite. The Wikipedia, and other wiki culture, can easily be implicated, and I believe that a broad analysis of related citations can connect this type of thought to many present problems of our time, including the present economic crisis. I also believe it can demonstrate an exceedingly important concept: the viral nature of predation, or what I call "anti-empathy."--John Bessa (talk) 16:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello John, sorry but there are several problems with what you are suggesting/implying. First and foremost what you are saying is original research and wikipedia is not the place for you to impose your hypothetical findings as facts (you may read WP:OR for further clarification). We, the editors, try our best to avoid even unintentional unfounded or un-acknowledged information; thus, searching around I find that this "trawl" term seems to only be defined as "a net for fishing" and I can not find any other meaning. Secondly, this is the Internet forum talk page, you should be posting this sort of thing in the Troll (Internet) articles' talk page. The troll article also seems to have a slightly different view on the term, related to what you are saying. 7ghost (talk) 22:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Use of the word "troll"[edit]

I have had a long history moderating discussion groups, and one in particular about the Katrina hurricane and flood crisis unquestionably had direct impact on the decision making process of Congress during that crisis. The reason for this was possibly membership in the group by a US senator.

I put writing here pointing to bias in the use of the term "troll." It was not original research, or research of any kind -- I was simply pointing to problems about the information on this page, specifically neutrality though I did not mention it as such at the time.

The discussion actually evolved into original research before it was erased when the anonymous contributor 7ghost posted an apology, probably ingenuine, as he removed my writing. He, himself, presented research material, and hence triggered research--upon which I intend to follow through eleswhere, possibly on a related Wikipedia wiki.

I see that I have to proceed in technical terms here (and to explain the process in the research), so I am approaching the problem that I see as bias in terms of neutrality; I will be questioning the neutrality of this article, though in the research the focus will be on bias, and that will be approached from the perspective of mental illness.

I am very much saying that the information here may be true, but that the phenomena described here is in fact bias, and the protection of this biased information is further biased, and hence lacks neutrality. Ultimately over time research will then be presented, or perhaps meta-research, that shows that the basis of this bias is, on many levels, mental illness--as is all bias. This anonymous contributor provides excellent examples. Ultimately this discussion will serve to strengthen the Wikipedia, but the editing war attack that will undoubtedly unfold in the form of an attack will make the process of correctly describing social science phenomena in Information Society difficult. But it will be all good in the end, as it is all meant to be constructive, if critical.

I have posted the text erased by the anonymous poster here in an attempt to prevent an "editing war." --John Bessa (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I did not post a apology and nigheter did I delete anything of what you mentioned. The so called "erased" content is right above. 7ghost (talk) 10:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

some parts seem to be talking about some forums in specific[edit]

reading this in some parts I got the feelling it was talking about some forum in specific and not forums in general, things like the report link always being a "!" icon, carbon copies behaving like blind carbon copies, poll addition only allowed during thread creation etc --TiagoTiago (talk) 16:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Report & Poll issue should be gone. I am not too sure about carbon copies, it does not say all forums have it (the phrasing is "sometimes available"). In any case, this is a wiki feel free to be bold and edit what you see as wrong. 7ghost (talk) 19:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

SAP statistical project for time posting[edit]

Does anyone know what are the major critical steps to allow time entry to post against an internal statistical project? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

forum vs forums?[edit]

The first sentence says: "An Internet forum, or message board, is an online discussion site." Then a note specifies: "the term forums refers to the site, while the term forum refers to one of many containers (directories) that the site uses to organize the user submitted content".

So maybe the first sentence should instead say that "Internet forums ... are an online discussion site"? Or maybe the definitions and usage notes should be revised?

Is the singular form "forum" always one of the many containers to organize the discussions? And "forums" in plural is always the site itself? What is considered best usage among Internet writers?

-- (talk) 17:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

This might need discussing. I believe "forum" is prefectly fine. However when you are on the site itself everyone will try to use "forums" or "board" to avoid confusion; this does not imply "forum" is not perfectly fine as well in that context, but rather less used. 7ghost (talk) 13:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


Shouldn't there be a link to Forum (Roman) ? And one to wikt:forum ?
--Jerome Potts (talk) 05:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Internet Drama redirecting here[edit]

Is that really necessary or appropriate? For a second I thought I was on that other encyclopaedia. Maybe it's a common phrase in the U.S. but I've never come across it in my country before. (talk) 13:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I, for one, am disappointed at it redirecting here instead of having its own article. CannibalSmith (talk) 13:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm in the wrong place, but[edit]

Wikia, Inc. It has forums and I think we should implement them here.--Launchballer (talk) 09:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

what CXC do i need to do law? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUMJasper Deng (talk) 06:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

I'm not so sure that the subject of Postcount is worthy enough to merit its own separate article. From a technical standpoint, a postcount is generally just the result of a simple database query that is usually displayed next to a user's posts in an internet forum. SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 21:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Postcount should be merged to the Internet Forum page. ArmoredPersonel (talk) 13:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I also agree. Postcounts only exist on forums, therefore should be included in the same place.. Donkey100 (talk) 17:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Postcounts do technically exist on other platforms such as blogs etc, but the primary use is for forums, so it probably would be best for a subsection on this article. Possibly to the Post section. However is it definitely worth considering the contexts of the term. TheWyo (talk) 11:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

signup to this website[edit]

[REMOVED] its wicked for all those cool guys —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, Wikipedia is not a place to advertise, thank you ZellDenver (talk) 01:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Censored Words as a "Work Around"[edit]

I've noticed most Admins add phrases into the Censored words list as a work around for signature character limitations. Not sure if this is common enough to add. ZellDenver (talk) 01:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

post ordering =[edit]

Reading the thread section I noticed a conflicting statement about which way the posts are ordered by default. I removed one stmt about which order is default, and asked for a citation on the other. Linking to the help/admin/config page of some popular forum backend software project would be fine, I've never configured one but am assuming this is very easy info to find if you have done so before... thanks Mboard182 (talk) 05:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Possible vandalism found[edit]

I happened to pass by here with someone wrote this: "--redacted--" Seems like a troll or something.

Sir Jazer 13 (talk) 10:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


I noticed that section about anonymity that existed last year, is no more there. Also, there isn't a single wiki link to anonymous. (talk) 12:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


Reminder to users of this talk page[edit]

There are three things that new users of this page don't seem to be getting:

  1. This talk page itself is not a forum.
  2. Wikipedia is not for advertising and promotion.
  3. Comments should be signed.

Please keep these in mind when editing this talk page. Thank you.Jasper Deng (talk) 16:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Alternate meaning of doubleposting?[edit]

I've often seen people calling somthing else doubleposting, when you don't edit your last post but also don't wait for any other replies before posting a new reply right after your previous one (for example to keep things more organized when what you got to say the second time is a whole'nother message, or to make sure people with the thread in the watchlist are notified you wrote more); some forums even encourage you to do that when there is good reasons, while others might even ban you for doing it, and even within individual forums there can disagreements, some people don't mind it at all while others flame whoever posts without waiting for new replies from others. --TiagoTiago (talk) 06:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


MyBB is a type of inter forum. A forum software. A mybb forum — Preceding unsigned comment added by StevenF50 (talkcontribs) 19:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 February 2013[edit]

User groups Internally, Western-style forums organize visitors and logged in members into user groups. Privileges and rights are given based on these groups. A user of the forum can automatically be promoted to a more privileged user group based on criteria set by the administrator.[10] Some forums give members the option to donate in exchange for an elevated status granting them access to further privileges than the standard member. A person viewing a closed thread as a member will see a box saying he does not have the right to submit messages there, but a moderator will likely see the same box granting him access to more than just posting messages.[11] An unregistered user of the site is commonly known as a guest or visitor. Guests are typically granted access to all functions that do not require database alterations or breach privacy. A guest can usually view the contents of the forum or use such features as read marking, but occasionally an administrator will disallow visitors to read their forum as an incentive to become a registered member.[note 1] A person who is a very frequent visitor of the forum, a section or even a thread is referred to as a lurker and the habit is referred to as lurking. Registered members often will refer to themselves as lurking in a particular location, which is to say they have no intention of participating in that section but enjoy reading the contributions to it. Giles3INFS115 (talk) 19:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

This suggested edit consists of the addition of the sentence "Some forums give members the option to donate in exchange for an elevated status granting them access to further privileges than the standard member." Please provide a source for this addition. Thanks. -- Dianna (talk) 18:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


Two things. One, isn't the link to AdminForums under Administrator in violation of Wikipedia:NOADS to begin with?

Two, the link to AdminForums is dead anyways. It leads to a parked domain page and should be removed. KiriKazuto (talk) 09:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 August 2013[edit]

There are generally to types of forums do follow and no follow. Do follow links and forums are those that can be crawled by Google crawler and bots and no follow are not crawled by Google's crawler. You can identify both of them by clicking right on the link and then by clicking inspect element. There you can find whether it is do follow or no follow. You can also use plugins for the same or you may identify do follow or no follow links by looking at strike through on the hyper-linked text. If a text is strike through it means that it is no follow. Roger Styen (talk) 10:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. If you're proposing the above text be added, it will need some changes: aside from general copyediting, it needs to be rewritten to avoid using the second-person voice (i.e., it can't use the pronoun you), the inline link needs to disappear (we don't put external links in the body of an article), and there needs to be a reliable source to support what it says. Please also indicate exactly where in the article you'd like it to go. Rivertorch (talk) 17:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Internet Drama[edit]

Internet Drama redirects here, but there is no reference to it in the article. Either there should be a section describing what ID is, or the term should have its own article. (I know what it is BTW). --Ef80 (talk) 20:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

good noon[edit]

i just want to ask if the pregnant woman can take a bonamin one hour before the trip? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:13, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

How does that have any relation to a Internet forum? Dudel250 (talk) 03:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


Would it be wise to start archiveing this talk area since there's discussions going back to 2009? Dudel250 (talk) 03:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC)