Talk:Kiwi Farms

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kiwi Farms article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6: 90 days

While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Websites: Computing C‑class Low‑importance

	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.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Internet culture C‑class Low‑importance

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.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Internet culture To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles
Expand : Pick an article from here or here
Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images
Stubs : All stubs are located here
Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}}
- See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Kiwi Farms. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Kiwi Farms at the Reference desk.

Why isn't Chris mentioned by name?

It's very clear that the writer went out of his way to not name him. Not mentioning him by name is like calling Zuckerberg "a collage student" on the Wikipedia page for Facebook and intentionally refusing to say his name, Chris is the main reason the site was made, mention him by name or don't make an article on the site. Mudkipboy7 (talk) 02:55, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Kiwifarms is noteable and that makes Chris notable and should be named. Mentally ill or not, wanting to have notoriety or not, those are not relevant things to being documented on Wikipedia except maybe in extraordinary and extreme cases. We always see people getting attention in the media we don't think deserve any, like it or not they're relevant to the subject. 185.31.98.184 (talk) 04:42, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The article has been written and re-written so many times, always with some hackneyed attempt to obfuscate the origin of the name, and by extension avoid the whole "CWC"-thing. It really does the article no good, as this isn't just "a mentally ill person", it's a prominent figure in internet culture, who, for several reasons (not just the 2021 arrest) has received a fair amount of mainstream media coverage. In general, I believe this CWC person is notable enough for an article of their own, based on the extremely unique circumstances of their life and their massive cult following. It wouldn't be too out-there, given articles of a similar nature (see Jessi Slaughter cyberbullying case as example) do exist on Wikipedia.

I understand that such an article would have to have a close eye on it, to prevent it from going off the rails, and that the topic itself has been sort of banned, since both CWC and their detractors used Wikipedia as a "battle ground" of sorts way back when, but I consider it a disservice to not at least have a brief mention of the namesake of this article, particularly since several of the listed sources provide this very information. A Simple Fool (talk) 17:34, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This topic has been discussed to death. There would need to be consensus in a structured, formal, well-attended discussion (such as a Request for Comment) to change the community's current position. I notice that no comments in this section provide any evidence that there has been substantial coverage in reliable sources. — Bilorv (talk) 08:44, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if these are reliable sources or not, but there are several articles to be found regarding CWC and recent events through a Google search. (1, 2.)

I don't think it's enough to create an entire new article, but I think it's worth a mention in the KiwiFarms article, especially as some sources mention KiwiFarms directly. JungleEntity (talk) 01:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The honest answer? There is, realistically, no way to write about the person in question without violating WP:BLP. I do believe they may satisfy WP:GNG, however, Wikipedia does not need an article on every notable subject, nor does every notable subject need a mention. It is easier (on everyone's sanity) to avoid it. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 07:27, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's also worth noting that a fairly strong consensus was built at WP:AN that there is pretty much zero chance of them having an article written. Primefac (talk) 07:45, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I said a mention in this article, he is too significant to not mention by name. Mudkipboy7 (talk) 01:49, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your continued misgendering of her is somewhat of a concern. Primefac (talk) 10:57, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, "Wikipedia does not need an article on X notable subject", and "it's easier to avoid it" screams laziness to me. It strikes me as odd that a place for information would basically pick and choose articles based essentially on how comfortable they happen to feel about a specific subject. It's just a bad look to leave gaps in information "just because", despite articles about similar (less notable, even) people existing seemingly without much issue. It's such an arbitrary rule, and it seems likely that most of the people enforcing said rule either know too little, or nothing at all about this subject A Simple Fool (talk) 22:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The emphasis is on BLP, not on "easier to avoid". It is not people picking and choosing articles based on comfortableness, the point is that no one has been able to write an article that both meets BLP and establishes the notability. 0xDeadbeef 22:22, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little confused. Why can't we name them? We don't need a whole article, just add "Christine Chandler" or whatever after "webcomic artist." Riffraff913 (talk) 16:41, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does the My Immortal fanfic really deserve as much attention as the other controversies?

The other controversies relate to provoked suicides and potential connections to / response to a terrorist incident. The authorship of My Immortal (which, as I understand it, is itself of a sort of meme notability and not due to being a serious work) seems to really pale in comparison to the other stuff. So what if something interesting was discovered on the website, that's what it's supposed to do. On the Daily Mail wikipedia page we don't list everything they ever discovered, what is important about the author of this meme fanfic work?! 185.31.98.184 (talk) 04:54, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It basically all boils down to coverage of the event. The purported authorship gained a lot of coverage in the media and the site's involvement as far as the brother goes got its own fair share of coverage as well. It's enough to justify a subsection. As far as the other stuff the site has done or covered, very little of that gains enough coverage to justify inclusion here. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:13, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ok, that makes sense, thanks. 185.31.96.13 (talk) 16:04, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! It's a reasonable question to ask! ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide of harassment victims

Original Research --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:18, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I am aware of the Wikipedia rules about original research, but given the US Bureau of Consular Affairs have now confirmed that no US Citizen died by suicide anywhere near or when the supposed date of suicide of the pseudonymous Near, is it possible to include a note to that effect in the article? Every single article referenced, regardless of being a "notable source", references the same anonymous googledoc and one single individual's twitter account - both of whose claims have been demonstrably debunked (albeit not in a manner that is guaranteed to be published by a noticeable source). We should not harbor falsehoods on here, no matter how distasteful we find the subject of the article --92.1.172.155 (talk) 20:27, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've answered your own question. Using the US Bureau's database is original research. It would not be original research if they said "We are aware of a claim that a US citizen died by suicide under X circumstances. This is false." But I don't see why the US Bureau would have a complete list of all citizens who died by suicide, nor how you know where Near supposedly died by suicide (which is not necessarily anywhere close to where they lived) etc. All of these factors are something you could possibly convince me of, but the fact that it is not immediately and uncontroversially clear to an independent observer reading the reliable source with no further context makes it original research and unverifiable. — Bilorv (talk) 10:45, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus says it's true, and the purpose of Wikipedia is to maintain the consensus. It doesn't matter whether it's factually true or false. 51.155.110.141 (talk) 12:52, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"The consensus says it's true, and the purpose of Wikipedia is to maintain the consensus. It doesn't matter whether it's factually true or false."

And that's why, ladies and gentlemen, Wikipedia is regarded as a joke in Academias and STEM faculties all over the globe. It doesn't matter if God himself reveals his form to us lowly mortals and directly says to everybody "No, what you wrote is wrong, rectify it!", thw average Wikipedian will always answer with the classic "IT'S REAL TO ME, DAMMIT!" 93.71.195.201 (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that the kind of completely braindead reasoning which could lead pretty much anyone to insert that the Earth is flat in every article and prevent everyone from removing it because enough morons believe in it ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cryptic72 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If Wikipedia had existed when expert consensus was that the Earth is flat then we would have asserted that position as fact. It's hard to see how you would expect us to transcend the scientific knowledge of the era. For the last 2000–2500 years, expert consensus has been that the Earth is roughly spherical, so that is what we report. — Bilorv (talk) 21:54, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Phrasing regarding the death of Near

Ginder's death still has not been validated through an official source, indeed the only "validations" we have are from a USA Today article which claims to have spoken with Ginder's employer and the Kotaku and PC Gamer articles which reference Hector Martin. While arguments have been hade regarding the validity of these claims, there is some phrasing that I suggest could be altered in order to reflect this. Regarding Martin's reports, the article mentions that he "reported on June 28 that he had spoken to police who confirmed that Near had died the previous day", the phrasing, much like the following part about the USA Today article, makes this seem authoritative, while in reality these are both sources which reference people who are either not citing any verifiable information (in the case of Martin) or have not had their claims independently reported in other sources (in the case of Beckett in the USA Today article). According to the principle of WP:V, the information must come from reliable sources, and while arguments for Kotaku and USA Today fitting this criteria have been made, the sources which these publications reference certainly aren't by any measure. The best thing would naturally be if a statement or other information could authoritatively conclude whether or not David Kirk Ginder is dead or not, ideally from the Bureau of Consular Affairs if Ginder was a U.S. citizen when this is supposed to have occurred. Tsumugii (talk) 17:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is the responsibility of USA Today, Kotaku and PC Gamer to do the direct research to verify if it is true or not that Near died. If they did not consult the Bureau of Consular Affairs, then we have no reason to. I don't see what reason we would have to trust the accuracy of some government database over Near's employer. — Bilorv (talk) 14:54, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I read this and I thought, wait, aren't you just turning things around to say that you prefer to use primary sources that seem more authentic to you than to trust reliable, secondary sources that have conducted their own research from primary sources? 0xDeadbeef 15:04, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how a Twitter post and a Google Doc counts as a reliable primary source fit for any sort of research, only USA Today had any sources which weren't directly linked to social media. Tsumugii (talk) 18:18, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tsumugii, Why do we need to traverse the sourcing graph to prove its reliability? If reliable, secondary sources say they are true, the Wikipedia article should also reflect that as truth. We care a lot about the sources we cite in the articles, while trusting the sources with their claims. I personally find it hard to believe that a search in a government database should overturn claims by several reliable secondary sources. 0xDeadbeef 18:37, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This may be mitigated if we can find a reputable source that is reporting on the overseas death records. Good luck with that, though. Riffraff913 (talk) 16:44, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]