|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Internet meme article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|Threads older than 60 days may be archived by.|
Reference 5 needs an updated link to http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/29/business/worldbusiness/29iht-carr.1839216.html?_r=0 as the page has moved! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 12:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Not done It's used to cite the usage of memes in ads. - M0rphzone (talk) 00:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Year-end review of 'meme' popularity increasing
Should a line be added on how "meme" has taken on a new definition on the internet to replace "image macro"?
- Yes, as soon as a source referring to it can be found. It's taking over as the "new" definition, from what I can see. Here's an example:
"Post to /r/chromecast
subscribe users 33,854 here ~65
- NO Spamming
- NO Bullying
- NO Memes"
- From Reddit. Apparently those irritating pictures with words in them that lazy people send all over facebook are in a class with spam and bullying now. Makes sense to me!
- I think this use of the word should be documented at meme, too. Huw Powell (talk) 14:13, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- The proper term that you are referring to is an "Advice Animal." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 23:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't know how to edit references but I did notice that the last link in the references for this wiki (memes.org link) is dead.
Anyway hopefully some one can edit it.
major rewrite necessary
Although the source i'd added (technopedia.com) was apparently in fact a copy of an old version of this article, it did in fact mention the synonyms "Internet phenomenon" and "Internet fad". In any case, there was no need to remove them because there were good reasons to mention these synonyms in older versions of this article. We even have a disambig page saying as much: Internet_phenomena.
A bigger problem is that we list Shifman's important book in the references but don't cite it enough, not even in the explanation of the concept! Worse still, we don't have any good source for our explanation. We have as our only source a ridiculously unreliable one - a newspaper, and a very unreliable one at that. So it's no surprise our explanation ("definition") is simply wrong - it could just as well refer to a viral video. In addition, Shifman's important research and its differentiation between content, form, and stance is simply ignored by the article. Here are 4 sources for an emergency fix of the currently embarrassing state of one of the most important articles on the digital age, something people will (erroneously) think Wikipedia knows more about than most other Internet sources:
Shifman's book. The pages 37 to 40 of the crucial ones (probably 37 to 42) are visible.
See also Talk:Meme for a discussion of that article's naive and incorrect presentation of the concept as having been invented by Dawkins without mention of the history of the concept and related ones. --Espoo (talk) 10:04, 23 June 2014 (UTC)