Talk:Internet meme

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Internet culture (Rated Start-class, Top-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. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Internet (Rated Start-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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Comedy (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Reference update[edit]

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 213.120.221.5 (talk) 12:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Fixed; thanks for pointing that out! -- Limulus (talk) 04:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Reference 6 needs to be removed completely; the website linked to contains no content. Eeyore004 (talk) 22:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)eeyore004 12/03/2012

X mark.svg 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[edit]

FYI, eight 2012 examples, some good, some lame: [1]Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:21, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Should a line be added on how "meme" has taken on a new definition on the internet to replace "image macro"?[edit]

"Meme" is now synonymous with "Image Macro." Should that be added? --99.170.160.31 (talk) 06:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Rules

  • 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)

dead link in references.[edit]

Hi,

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.

Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albymangels (talkcontribs) 00:44, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

major rewrite necessary[edit]

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.

This (with material from Shifman's book) and even this abstract are much better than what we have.

This looks very good too.--Espoo (talk) 18:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

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)