Talk:4chan

These quotes are straight from Wikipedia:Verifiability, which is an official and founding policy of Wikipedia. 1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources. 2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor. 3.The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it. "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Reliable sources are necessary both to substantiate material within articles and to give credit to authors and publishers in order to avoid plagiarism and copyright violations. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources." "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question."

Template:FixBunching

Template:FixBunching

Logo

I think the image at the top should be the actual 4chan logo, not a screencap of the frontpage. But that's just me. Howa0082 (talk) 05:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The 4chan logo isn't finalized, the contest for the new one is still underway. Even if it was, someone would have to email moot to get it gfdl licensed. A screencap can at least be claimed as fair use. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 03:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Logos are used all the time under fair use (Wikipedia:Logos). --Phirazo 05:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Tom Green

Why does this page say nothing about how the 4chan mess up Tom Greens show all the time? This should be on the page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tidussquall10x (talk • contribs) 09:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources? J Milburn (talk) 16:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The only sources for that would be the actual webisodes of his show, which I think are either on his site or YouTube or something. For instance, this. [1] Howa0082 (talk) 16:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, we could possibly have a section on that. He certainly mentions 4chan! Any third party sources, or is it just him in his shows (plus blog, whatever)? J Milburn (talk) 16:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Post stats

Though it isn't a major highlight of the article, I've gone through the post stats and updated them. Two points should be mentioned:

1m GETs for boards other than /b/:

Reached: /a/, /co/, /v/, /k/, /m/, /r/, /s/, /h/ and /tg/ (nine)

Close: /g/ (0.9m), /gif/ (0.9m) /tv/ (0.8m), /mu/ (0.8m), /d/ (0.7m)

Notes on /a/ and /v/:

/a/ currently has 8m+, /v/ currently has 9m+. While the disparity is not important to the article, the note about them should obviously be updated when the lesser numbered board (currently /a/) goes up to the next million.

--Muna (talk) 19:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I bumped up to the next million a little while ago. Once /a/ hits 10m, a significant milestone, we can just let it sit at saying "over 10m" until it gets to 20m. :) --Muna (talk) 04:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

typical view

no offence to any frequent 4chan goers but there should be something about how people who go 4chan are typically viewed as losers or emo's. That's true right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twinscythe (talk • contribs) 13:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources? J Milburn (talk) 18:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone needs to make that into a demotivator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.181.241.99 (talk) 04:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't encourage him. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{talk • contribs}} 21:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it isn't. 4chan is notorius for launching XBOX HUEG raids against furry, emo, goth, anime-fan, and pro-anorexic communities, just to name a few. These people, who really are losers and (almost always) emo to boot, go to their youtube and rave about how the evil people attacked them, typically, in a fit of hypocrisy, claiming that the channers are, in fact, the emo's and losers, which is false. The group of people who use 4chan are a mix of all different kinds of people, hence one of their many unofficial mottos:

"We take out your garbage. We cook your food. We go to school with you. We are your coworkers. We are the people across the street. We are the postman, we are the delivers of your pizza. We are anonymous. Do not fuck with us."

Hope this illuminated the situation. --124.40.47.75 (talk) 13:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, 4chan users are the kind of people who think Fight Club was a clever film and like to quote from it at random. --86.135.126.195 (talk) 15:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not a forum for discussion of 4chan, it is for discussing the article. There are no reliable sources discussing the 'typical view' of 4chan members, so it will not be included. Whether you agree or not is irrelevent, it isn't going in the article. J Milburn (talk) 19:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed items

I've removed the following:

Besides lolcats, memes include the 'FBI party van' for legally questionable content.

We don't want to list memes here - that's what Wikichan[2] is for. In addition, that source was horribly incorrect.

I've also removed the reference to ED out of the following:

Newcomers and outsiders often find posts incomprehensible, though Encyclopedia Dramatica is known to provide some explanations.

Encyclopaedia Dramatica is full of humorous misinformation, so please provide a source before making claims like that. --Muna (talk) 03:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

We're not listing memes, it's an example for incomprehensibility. ED is mentioned in exactly the source you removed. To show that the source is 'horribly incorrect', you may need some other reliable source to back you up. We're not out to enforce truth here. –Pomte 04:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It's 4chan Party Van, not "FBI Party Van", as Wikichan[3], a dedicated *chan wiki will tell you. If you want to re-add the bit about Encyclopaedia Dramatica with the source linked to it, feel free, just don't re-add the other piece of bogus information. --Muna (talk) 04:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

OMG, someone mentioning ED on Wikipedia. Someone else even suggesting linking to it as a source! That'll get you a lifetime ban, at the least. ;)
BTW, unless things have changed within the last 4 months, you physically can't add a source link to Encyclopaedia Dramatica on Wikipedia. Try it, and see what happens. Meowy 18:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

That's not what's being suggested. –Pomte 18:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

My point was that Wikichan and personal knowledge aren't reliable. –Pomte 18:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It may be humorous, and may be full of misinformation, but generally speaking, if you have a working bullshit detector, you can figure out what's what. Many of the articles have perfectly valid information shrouded in extreme hyperbole and homophobia. We don't have an article on Longcat here. ED does. Someone comes here wondering what Longcat is, and they won't find out. ED explains it, though.

"One day, there was a picture of a cat. It was not Caturday but this specific cat was so long it became a meme and, though the day was not specifically the day of cats, this cat's length became famous." ... "Longcat is accompanied by the phrase Longcat is looooong, usually with a photoshopped image of the cat made much longer. Longcat really isn't that long."

Isn't that pretty clear? May not have dates and all sorts of crap we demand here, but it's informative and tells you what's what. That's what ED and Wikichan can be used as references for. Wikichan's more sedate than ED, though, and from the new server move, will probably have far less objectionable material, if that was part of your issue. Howa0082 (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Wikichan and Encyclopedia Dramatica are good places to learn about memes that you may not understand or whatever, but they are absolutely not reliable sources. We don't have an article on longcat because it just isn't notable. Wikichan and Encyclopedia Dramatica are based on original research- they have to be, there are no sources. Damuna was right to remove the comment- not because the source is wrong (we are about verifiability, not truth) but because the cited source doesn't mention Encyclopedia Dramatica or 'FBI Party Van' at all. J Milburn (talk) 09:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

There are 5 pages in that article. I cited the specific page numbers at first, but those citations got merged into one. –Pomte 15:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Erm, pally. Any secondary source is based on Original Research. That's why they are secondary, as opposed to primary. Someone went out and researched the topic, which is what we are supposed to do here, actually, but with the ability to reference our claims with other works to prove we're not just making it up. Now, Wikichan and ED may not be consistantly RELIABLE, but they are NOT Original Research on our part. The research, however poor, has been done already by someone else. Thus, our use of ED or Wikichan falls absolutely clearly into "secondary" status. If you really want to push this idea that ED and Wikichan are "OR", then I guess we just have to outlaw Google searches, don't we? Synthesizing the information gathered through a Google search, even with references, sounds like Original Research by this hilarious definition policy wanks use. To be clear on this, I am not currently debating reliability, because that is for the individual adding the information to decide. I am merely informing you as to what a secondary source is, since you seem to be an idiot confused. ED is a secondary source, because it talks about things that happen elsewhere. Those discussed places are the primary source. Of course ED and Wikichan are original research, but WE are the ones who are not supposed to do that, not THEM. Primary: 4chan. Secondary: Something which discusses 4chan directly, through it's own research and observations, like Encyclopedia Dramatica. Tertiary: Something which can use that secondary source to sythesize an informative article on the subject. That's us! Howa0082 (talk) 16:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)