Talk:Kiwi Farms

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

  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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

Maybe because Chris Chan is such a complicated figure and bias, uncited sources and rumours are rampant, not least the so-called "troll armies" ready to editwar the article into unreadability, the topic is just too difficult to cover. Chris Chan may be a worldwide sensation, but maybe it's best their presence is confined to legend rather than Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VariousStuffs (talk • contribs) 23:08, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Suicide of harassment victims

Original Research --Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:18, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
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) 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) 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) "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) 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) 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I also find it interesting how someone can suffer "lifelong abuse" from a site nine years old, but maybe that's just me... Winston von Ripplechip (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:32, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

It is a slightly ambiguous summary of what it says in the Kotaku source. I'll see if I can make it a bit clearer. DanielRigal (talk) 01:08, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Done. Does that make more sense now? DanielRigal (talk) 01:20, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

It also doesn't help that the only source is basically a GDoc and some guy saying "Dude, trust me", followed by Kotaku picking it up and saying "Yeah dude; trust him." Winston von Ripplechip (talk) 01:29, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like you have a problem with Kotaku, not with Wikipedia. Take it up with them if you want to. Unless they retract their article, we consider it reliable. DanielRigal (talk) 01:41, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that looking for death records is going to do anybody any good. As far as I am aware, we don't have any reliable source for Near's legal name and my understanding is that Japan does not recognise non-binary genders. Amateur sleuthing through the Japanese records is not going to yield any reliable sources that we can use. It would be like looking for a needle in a haystack where the haystack is labelled in Japanese. The risk of incorrectly identifying unconnected people would be very high. Out of basic decency and respect more than anything, I urge people to just drop this line of inquiry. DanielRigal (talk) 01:39, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Offline

The forum is now offline. Somebody should edit that ImStevan (talk) 23:21, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

While I can confirm it's offline, it's too early to tell what the cause of it being offline is. We don't have any RS on the outage, and it could be for any number of reasons unrelated to the current call for Cloudflare to remove services from the site. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:31, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

You were right, seems it's already back up ImStevan (talk) 01:32, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Minor edit request

Hey all, I've noticed that trying to get them targets fired from their jobs sounds odd. It would be nice if targets was dropped from there. Thanks!

-- Holzklöppel (talk) 16:27, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done, Good call! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:28, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed edit request on 29 August 2022

Slightly rephrase the following:

−

[[USA Today]] reported on July 23, 2021, that they had confirmed with Near's former employer that they had died.

+

[[USA Today]] reported on July 23, 2021, that it had confirmed with Near's former employer that they had died.

LightNightLights ^(talk) 11:58, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for the suggestion, and thanks for teaching me about Template:Td. You're so close to 500 edits, and not needing to wait on us slowpokes! Happy editing. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:47, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Removing "Online-Status"

I think this is a useless thing to have in the infobox, considering how often the site's status fluctuates, making it just needless busywork for editors. If a reader really wants to check if the site is online or not, they can go to the site themselves or check something like DownDetector. I believe we should only put something regarding its online status in the infobox if the site goes permanently offline. Things like huge DDOS attacks that are happening to the site right now should be left to the History section, if it needs to be said at all. JungleEntity (talk) 00:05, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

+1, nothing to add. -- ferret (talk) 00:43, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Pointless unless it's a sustained / permanent change. --Jack Frost (talk) 00:45, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I've removed this per the emerging consensus here. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:51, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Cloudflare campaign

"a campaign was started to try to convince Cloudflare to stop supporting the site" -- should it be clarified that the objective of the campaign is to enable federal crimes (DDoS-ing) to take the site offline? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aardark (talk • contribs) 09:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Got a reliable source that says as much? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 13:23, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

No, just common sense. Saying that Cloudflare is "supporting the site" is vague and misleading. They're not supporting the site ideologically or financially, they're just providing the same service that's available to everyone else -- protection against criminal DDoS attacks.

I think it's noteworthy that the "campaign" is an attempt to remove that protection, rather than simply getting the relevant authorities to shut Kiwi Farms down, if there is indeed any evidence that it is a criminal terrorist site as Keffals claims. Aardark (talk) 14:56, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

If you've got no reliable sources then you've got nothing and we are not going to action an entirely unsupported request. DanielRigal (talk) 15:05, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree that "supporting the site" sounds odd and is inaccurate. Neither of the sources cited say that Cloudfare support them, just that they provide services to them - I've reworded accordingly. SmartSE (talk) 15:30, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

More ambiguous than inaccurate but it was definitely good to clarify it. DanielRigal (talk) 13:43, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Cloudflare doesn't just protect websites from DDoS, they also act as a proxy that speeds up network traffic. The campaign is for Cloudflare to stop providing service to Kiwi Farm, not "stop protecting the website against DDoS attacks so we can DDoS them". If you understand wiki-speak, this is against the NPOV and OR policies. 0xDeadbeef 15:54, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Where are you getting that from? That's not what sources I can find say: e.g. Internet infrastructure company Cloudflare provides DDoS protection services to numerous websites, including Kiwi Farms, effectively keeping them online.[1], and One of Cloudflare’s most popular services is anti-DDoS protection, which routes attempts to knock a web site offline by flooding it with traffic through its unique worldwide network. Without that service, it’s unlikely Kiwi Farms would be able to stay online.[2] Endwise (talk) 06:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

@Endwise: Cloudflare is, at its core, a content delivery network (CDN) which quickly serves users websites that they request through their web browsers. It also defends sites against attackers.[3] Secure and accelerate your apps, APIs, and websites in minutes by pointing your DNS to Cloudflare. Instantly turn on performance and security services, including: CDN, WAF, DDOS protection, bot management, API security, web analytics, image optimization, stream delivery, load balancing, SSL, and DNS.[4] I have used cloudflare for my websites, and it should be obvious that their DDoS protection is achieved by acting as a reverse proxy for your network traffic. If you do a nslookup for kiwi farms or other websites behind cloudflare, you will get cloudflare's IP. 0xDeadbeef 08:02, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that is obvious to people who are not familiar with how these services work but you are correct. In fact, a few days ago, I saw somebody falsely claiming that Cloudflare had nothing to do with KF and so, out of curiosity, I looked up their IPs and, of course, it was exactly as you say. Maybe there is some confusion as (iirc) their DDoS protection is not the same as their full CDN service but even mere DDoS protection clearly involves proxying the content. I'm not sure if it involves caching, although I'd be surprised if it didn't to some degree. If nothing else CF was hosting a custom error page for KF which, at one point, had a transphobic "joke" about suicide on it. DanielRigal (talk) 13:41, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. this and this would be an authoritative source on how Cloudflare works. 0xDeadbeef 13:50, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I've seen some musings (although not from any news outlets) that Cloudflare is only providing CDN for Kiwi Farms, and not DDOS protection. Because DDOS protection falls under the broader umbrella of Cloudflare's CDN, would it be worth changing the article from "Kiwi Farms uses DDOS protection services from Cloudflare", to "Kiwi Farms uses CDN services from Cloudflare"? However, If another source specifically states that Kiwi Farms uses Cloudflare's DDOS protection, I think it would be ok to leave the present wording. JungleEntity (talk) 22:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Ask and you shall receive! 'Anti-trans stalkers at Kiwi Farms are chasing one victim around the world. Their list of targets is growing.' - NBC News; (archive)

"Clara Sorrenti and those supporting her are hoping to open up Kiwi Farms to debilitating virtual attacks by demanding Cloudflare, one of its internet security service vendors, drop the site. Cloudflare has so far refused to budge."

Tweedle (talk) 22:14, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Even though NBC News is listed at RSP as one of the "generally reliable sources," I will have to disagree that this can be used for suggesting that the whole campaign is for Kiwi Farms to be DDoSed. The two page authors probably worded it as "debilitating virtual attacks" because they do not know what DDoS attacks are. 0xDeadbeef 11:40, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

OK then we can simply just use exactly how the source describes it as, a 'debilitating virtual attack', no? Regardless anyway I dispute the claim that the author's do not know what a DDoS attack is when at-least one of them, Ben Collins, has used it multiple times on their own Twitter page and on one occasion used it within an article they co-authored (the article). Tweedle (talk) 14:02, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh sorry, yeah. I would still disagree that the campaign's intention is to DDoS Kiwi Farms, but rather for Cloudflare to stop offering DDoS protection to Kiwi Farms. I don't know if that distinction makes sense, or maybe it is just about the wording. 0xDeadbeef 14:38, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

NBC appears to be implying something that the subject has not said. Are there other sources that say the same? Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 14:40, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge however I have not looked further into it, I am sure they will be more sources in the future will state similar and someone more dedicated then myself would be able to find said sources. An implication regardless though it is still reliable enough to say 'NBC claims... ' Tweedle (talk) 18:02, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Dropped by Cloudflare

https://blog.cloudflare.com/kiwifarms-blocked/ — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 22:35, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Trevor Project spamming

Look, I don't like Kiwi Farms as much as the next sane person, but the source that BOTH of the "sources" yall are using for the claim that Kiwi helped with the spam of the Trevor Project does not mention Kiwi Farms, only 4chan. It doesn't matter what the secondary source says, the primary source (this tweet) only mentions 4chan. Why don't yall actually read before moving stuff about? Naihreloe (talk) 22:57, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Hmmmm. I've taken a look to see what other reliable sources have said about this, and the only others I could find were the Los Angeles Blade, and BuzzFeed News, who also attributed it only to 4chan. As such I now suspect that this is a mistake by NBC, so I'd now support removal. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:15, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. -- ferret (talk) 23:20, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

It seems like I've misread the sources and I apologize. Removal seems fine (and has already been done). Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 23:29, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Cloudflare just dropped Kiwi farms, and edit request

Cloudflare released a statement in their blog detailing that they are cutting services to kiwi farms and are blocking them. The current website is displayed with a cloudflare blocked message, and I would like to request that the current status of the website be changed to temporarily offline or blocked.

Cloudflare blog and tweet:

https://blog.cloudflare.com/kiwifarms-blocked/

https://twitter.com/Cloudflare/status/1566190024864964611

Sources:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/09/03/cloudflare-drops-kiwifarms/

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/cloudflare-provided-security-services-kiwi-farms-blocks-website-rcna46219

https://www.rawstory.com/cloudflare-drops-controversial-far-right-website-kiwi-farms-after-public-backlash-site-is-down-report/

Good day or night, Randomdudewithinternet (talk) 23:48, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Your requested changes had already been made to this article; see the current revision. Funcrunch (talk) 23:50, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, just didn't refresh the article. Good day or night, Randomdudewithinternet (talk) 23:52, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Neurodivergent, not neurodiverse

At the end of the first paragraph under Harassment, the last sentence contains the phrase "neurodiverse people", and links to the article on Neurodiversity. However, the term should be "neurodivergent". Neurodiversity is just a concept that people's brains, or neurotypes, are variable, and that includes neurotypical people. With that in mind, it should be clear that saying "neurodiverse people" means the same thing as saying "everyone". What is actually meant in this context is "neurodivergent people", those whose are not neurotypical. Unfortunately, the whole article on Neurodiversity is a mess, and neurodivergent just redirects to that article, but at the least, the wording here needs to be changed. AndyRatchick (talk) 06:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

@AndyRatchick I've changed it to neurodivergent with this edit. LightNightLights ^(talk) 06:09, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Much appreciated. AndyRatchick (talk) 06:16, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Linking of the term 'lolcows' to Wiktionary

@Philroc (Tagging in order not to edit-war) I'd argue not that we shouldn't link the term lolcow to Wiktionary but that we shouldn't link it at all. The definition is mentioned right after the mention of the term (for reference, the definition is "people that can be 'milked for laughs'"). LightNightLights ^(talk) 06:49, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Intro is non-neutral self-promotion

Kiwi Farms may claim to be "dedicated to the discussion of online figures and communities", but that's not what neutral sources say or what they are known for, it's self-promotion. Specifically, it's a slight rephrasing of their own description which is:

Community dedicated to discussing eccentric people

— https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=&q=kiwifarms%20Community%20dedicated%20to%20discussing%20eccentric%20people

What they are known for, and the actual reason for their existence, are their harassment campaigns.

See eg nymag (2016):

Kiwi Farms, a loose community [...] that specializes in harassing people they perceive as being mentally ill or sexually deviant in some way.

— https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2016/07/kiwi-farms-the-webs-biggest-community-of-stalkers.html

Vice (2021):

a forum famous for being the center of internet-led targeted harassment campaigns

— https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkbmam/notorious-website-kiwi-farms-loses-its-domain-registrar

The Guardian (2022):

Kiwi Farms, a community forum website that frequently targets trans people online.

— https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/sep/04/cloudflare-reverses-decision-and-drops-trans-trolling-website-kiwi-farms

NBC (2022):

Kiwi Farms, a website associated with harassment campaigns against transgender people.

— https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/cloudflare-provided-security-services-kiwi-farms-blocks-website-rcna46219

I propose to change the intro from:

American Internet forum dedicated to the discussion of online figures and communities it deems "lolcows" (people who can be "milked for laughs").

To:

American Internet forum dedicated to the harassment of trans people and other minorities.

To avoid having "harassment" twice, I also propose to rephrase "trolling, harassment, and stalking" to "trolling and stalking". Zukorrom (talk) 09:23, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

"and other minorities" does not seem to reflect the sourcing, and it's kinda awkward phrasing tbh. Would change to dedicated to the harassment of online figures or dedicated to Internet-based harassment. Equivamp - talk 10:53, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

The entirety of the lede is dedicated to describing the website as a source of harassment of their targets, with the word already present three times. I think Equivamp's suggestion is better, but then some of the other sentences should also be change to avoid even more repetition. How about:

Kiwi Farms, formerly known as CWCki Forums (/ˈkwɪki/), is an American Internet forum dedicated to the discussion and harassment of online figures and communities it deems "lolcows" (people who can be "milked for laughs"). The targets of threads are subject to organized group trolling and stalking, as well as doxxing and real-life harassment. These actions have tied Kiwi Farms into the suicides of three people targeted by users of the site.

We should also work to expand the lede in general. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 11:11, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I think there is value in naming the groups targeted by Kiwi Farms, as it's important information for understanding why they are doing it. "and other minorities" is already sourced in the main article ("particularly minorities, women, LGBT people, neurodivergent people"). The focus on trans people is sourced by the sources above. I'm also not sure "online figures" is exactly right, nor is the harassment only internet-based.

I'm very open to other phrasings though! Maybe something like "dedicated to the harassment of minorities, particularly trans people", "dedicated to the harassment of trans people", or "dedicated to the harassment of trans people, women, neurodivergent people, and LGBT people"? Zukorrom (talk) 11:14, 4 September 2022 (UTC)