Talk:Reddit

Notable Community contributions

In this section, Reddit is loosely tied to "community contributions" that Reddit is not responsible for.

Yes, the guy who created Imgur is a Reddit user, but is he also a Facebook user? A Twitter user? A Digg user? He doesn't work for Reddit so how does this belong in an article about Reddit? This reference should be removed.

Similarly, what does "Graphic artist Mike Mitchell" have to do with Reddit other than his work has been posted there? How is his artwork a Reddit "community contribution"? Again, this should be removed.

Also, how is it relevant to Reddit that "Reddit USERS were given a Homo Heroes award by the Lesbian and Gay Foundation"? Again were these users also Twitter users or ABC viewers or steak eaters? Should we add this text to all of those articles? And besides, how is that "notable"? This should also be removed. 173.76.47.241 (talk) 14:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The Great Reddit Crash?

This section seems overly dramatic for a simple site outage. Nobody is going to remember or care about a short outage in the future, it happens all the time. The content in this section is certainly not encyclopedic. I propose this section be removed. --Ghewgill 18:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course it should be removed/rewritten sooner or later. But right now, it feels right. Right now, I'm suffering serious withdrawal syndromes. 84.137.115.18 18:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

What's up with the crash? I can't find any other info anywhere. 206.210.72.22 19:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The IP is 72.5.28.218, add it to your hosts file. Blog post. Deadfones 19:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

There was a lot of bullshit written on there. Very unencyclopedic, and unsuitable for Wikipedia. I removed most of it. Freshyill 19:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The "outage" section is no longer relevant as reddit is back online. Wikipedia is not a news service. --Ghewgill 21:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not seeing it online Freshyill 22:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Fear not: The internet is self-healing! --Ghewgill 23:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I still don't see it. --Danlock2 04:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Going on 24 hours and I still don't see it. I think that a major site like this being out for an entire day with no word from the admins may qualify as being Wikipedia-worthy. Freshyill 06:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

reddit continues work for me. They posted a blog entry explaining the dns blunder. If you can't read that yet, here's the google blogsearch result for it. Again, wikipedia is not (WP:NOT#OR) a news service. --Ghewgill 08:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The reddit blog posts don't work either, since they're hosted on reddit.com. The site doesn't work, but the rss feed keeps updating with new headlines for me, whats going on? 70.107.64.60 20:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It's okay guys. I put it back up.

Open source version

Is there an open source version of reddit?Maaparty 18:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• • You may want to use Pligg Shabda
  • reddit IS open sourced. Reddit Code Plbogen (talk) 21:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

No assertion of notability

Please provide an assertion of notability, or I will nominate this article for deletion under WP:N. Thanks. --N Shar 01:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

There are multiple sources in the article, and the company was bought by Conde Nast. It easily passes WP:N. -SpuriousQ 02:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I came to this article because a web site I visited tried to connect to it. I often look up web sites that many other web sites try to access to see if I want to allow them in my firewall. Unfortunately, this article did not give me that information. Why isn't reddit just a big 3rd party cookie? I meant that comment to give at least one reason why users might want to look up reddit. Bostoner (talk) 01:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Reddit logo.png

Image:Reddit logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Origin of name

So why is it called Reddit ? From "read it" or the latin ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.52.104 (talk) 15:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

This is probably a little late, but it's just short for "read it," according to Alexis Ohanian's blog. I'll put that in the article.

Reddit was the name of the founder's dog.TechMology (talk) 02:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Liberal Bias?

Reddit is well known for having a very strong liberal bias. I don't see mention of that in the article. Time to make that change, maybe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.23.56.80 (talk) 12:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the bias is just liberal, I see many extreme right wing viewpoints as well as extreme left wing. I think it attracts extremists in general. 204.193.129.239 (talk) 09:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it has more Ron Paul threads than any site I ever saw. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.231.88 (talk) 02:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Being that its content is user-submitted, the "bias" is dependent on the submitters of stories and could change at any time. 12.32.90.56 (talk) 21:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've been looking it over for a few months now, and despite the fact that it's user submitted and could change at any time, it hasn't. They've had a strong liberal bias for some time now, and I think it should be mentioned in the article. Bobman52 (talk) 18:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

In relation to the fact that the "bias" is based on the submitters and users that vote, this is no different then saying the bias of a newspaper comes from its staff and editors and they could change at any time.

I'm sorry, but can you cite your sources about Reddit having a liberal bias, or is this based upon your own observation over the last several months? <facepalm!> Linny harp (talk) 01:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Not that this belongs in the article, but Reddit has both strong liberal and libertarian elements. It does seem to almost completely lack conservatives though.

There are plenty of conservatives on reddit. Check the r/economics subreddit, among many others. 76.168.192.218 (talk) 17:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

99.175.83.210 (talk) 01:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not the "liberals" fault if conservatives don't know how to use the internets or dont like a certain website, everyone is free to join and submit any posts they want there's no bias. chandler ··· 01:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a variety of biases in reddit, but it is also very diverse. Also, the existence of subreddits complicates it a little further.(And also relieves it, as countering opinions can get their stories noticed there.) There are other problems, making an assessment of the biases in reddit is original work, and would be hard without giving a pov to this article. Further it might just make this article undue length.88.159.74.89 (talk) 00:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

reddit is a Wikipedia attack site.

According to SqueakBox, anyway. [1]

The link in question was a self-submitted article suggesting everyone donate money to the Wikimedia Foundation. Many people expressed that they donated money in support of the site. Others posted valid, critical facts about the site's flaws. Due to not being 100% on the site of Wikipedia, it has been denounced as an attack site.

I'm sure all the people who donated really appreciate being given this label, especially the redditor that donated $100, since this site is very mature and run by upstanding individuals.

reddit is not an attack site. However, if you have the tools, and a personal vendetta against reddit, you now have your firepower to ruin this article. 75.66.233.162 (talk) 14:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Have you seen the influence of SqueakBox, or has the article been modified to make it appear as if reddit is an attack site? No? Then you have nothing to worry. Don't open the umbrella before the rain. I personally think The Inquirer is an attack site against Wikipedia (especially since the Everywhere girl article got deleted), but I don't go there and put my thoughts there. Good editors keep what they think and what they can edit separated. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 15:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Logo

Why is it significant enough to mention that the logo frequently changes? RJFJR (talk) 19:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well for anyone that might not know what the site is, and they come on a day when the logo has changed there might be some confusion. --Sousveillipedia (talk) 04:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Reddit uses whale techmology to ensure constantly changing minor edits to their logo.TechMology (talk) 02:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It's considered a core element of reddit culture. An extremely popular, awesome, or reddit-related thread can quickly lead to a new temporary logo, which can also immediately confuse people since there is no clear explanation of what the logo is for. If someone makes a piece of toast with a reddit logo on it and posts the picture to reddit, and an admin decides that's awesome, they might crop the toast, size it down, and use it for a joke logo for a few hours/days, but there's no way to link the new logo back to the original toast post. Currently there is a subreddit just for posting explanations for the logo with links to the thread(s) being referenced, so people who weren't there for the joke can understand what the heck is going on. This was not always the case, aggravating many new or casual redditors who would then either be confused as to what was happening, or busy digging through links trying to find the right one, especially if the link in question was posted to a subreddit which the user did not subscribe to. I'd imagine including it on the wikipedia page was an attempt to explain to people new to the site that there is a method to the logo madness. Reddyenumber4 (talk) 07:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Owner Moderation

The Overview section claims, "Reddit is not moderated by its owners," however, this is untrue. Comments are sometimes hidden to all but the original commenter, so detecting the censorship is difficult to detect without access to multiple computers. At this time, the hidden comments can be detected when a story claims to have X number of comments, but actually has X minus one comments. This article's Overview section should be corrected. --72.71.253.157 (talk) 16:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

There is moderation by forum (subreddit) moderators, but it's misleading to assume that involves the site owners at all (though it sometimes does). Anyone can create a forum, and moderate it, and invite anyone else to be a moderator. The handful of largest (and earliest) forums do have the site owners as moderators, but there's nothing magic about those forums other than being the oldest and having the most traffic. The hundreds of other forums are, as far as I can tell, completely independent of the site owners' authority. There is nothing stopping any redditor from creating their own subreddit, with their own rules and surpassing the current largest forums in popularity and traffic, without involving or inviting the site owners at all.

As far as it being a sign of hidden comments when the comment count is higher than the visible comments, I'll take your word for it that subreddit moderators can do this (without multiple computers I can't test it for myself), but I've also seen this happen when comments are deleted; the comment count in the header will sometimes continue to include the deleted comments. I don't understand why it's inconsistent about this, but I've seen it happen with my own self-deleted comments and it is not any kind of certain indication that a moderator hid a comment. 72.227.183.222 (talk) 19:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Not seeing the relevance that there also exists subreddit moderators, in addition to the primary reddit forums. I have personally seen this moderation on my own comments, and I have read other Reddit users complaining of their own moderation. Unless you can provide a citation backing up your claim that the site owners are not involved with this moderation, then the misleading statement in the Overview section should be removed. I have removed the statement. Should you decide to override my change, then I suggest you put the text back in a way that will not mislead the reader into believing there is no comment moderation, in addition to providing a citation to your claim. --71.168.124.11 (talk) 23:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

There is moderation. It is not by the site owners. It is by the moderators of a particular subreddit. The site owners are also moderators of some the the subreddits, but do not have moderation rights in every subreddit. These rights probably vary depending on which of the site's owners it is. I don't have a third-party source for this right now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.25.85 (talk) 15:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Here to further explain - all content on the site has to be submitted to a subreddit. Subreddits are moderated voluntarily by the people who create them, and they can choose to add more moderators whose powers are mostly dedicated to getting rid of spam. People can then choose to join subreddits to get different sections of news, which will be included in their personal front page. If a mod abuses their power and the other mods don't do something about it, usually the proactive half of the community packs up and moves to a different subreddit under new leadership, and since they're the ones submitting links, the more passive half ends up following them to continue getting the same news. Since the code that determines front page content takes into account the difference between subreddits with several hundred and several thousand subscribers, changing subreddits to avoid a troublesome moderator will also alter the weighting system for the front page, so if one were to hypothetically move from r/news to r/news2, where news2 had only 1/10th the subscribers, news2 stories would still compete with much larger subreddits in link aggregation because the site would account for it's smaller size, making it much easier for a link from a 50 person subreddit to hit one's personal front page, than a link from a subreddit with 25,000 people. The site admins basically add new features and fix things when they break, and they are the only ones that moderate the r/reddit.com subreddit. There are a variety of subreddits subscribed to by default with a new account, but they can all be unsubscribed to. Additional spam control measures are a set of detection features coded into the way the website works automatically, and a newly implemented feature that displays one possible spam link at the top of the user's front page, and asks for the user's opinion of the quality of the link. Between this and the voting system already in place, reddit has tried to rely on a free market for aggregating content, eliminating spam, and organizing community leaders for different subreddits, with the few actual employees of the website usually spending their time developing new features and plans for the community. If a meme becomes popular, the admins might add a new T-Shirt to the store regarding it. If there is a thread suggesting an idea like a reddit meetup day, the admins might make a blog post to officially endorse it. But for the most part, the community is run and regulated by the users, the mods they endorse, and the built in spam filters. Since this is original research, I'm just posting it to clarify how the system works in practice given my own personal knowledge of the subject. Reddit contains a series of F.A.Q.s and blog posts dealing with site design and functionality, so anyone looking to source this might try there. Reddyenumber4 (talk) 07:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Delete this Article

There is no reason there should be an article for reddit. The crowd that hangs there is *very* biased. I guess they just used their numbers to keep this page here.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.88.198 (talk) 07:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Hitler was very biased too, that is no reason to remove the article on him. If you mean that this wikipedia article is biased, you should point out where. (And as noted, it easily passes notability.) 88.159.74.89 (talk) 00:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Reddit really does not deserve an article though. No need to waste space on wikipedia for every small message board and site out there. It's not notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.238.248.83 (talk) 03:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Then the article for Digg would have to go too. They are very similar "message boards". PaulHat (talk) 21:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Reddit is a major website ranked #533 on Alexa rankings at the moment, saying it's not notable is incorrect. Link to Alexa stats

Fantastically biased statement

This opinion is offered in the article:

Top topics on the site typically reflect the far-left of American politics extolling atheism and socialism. Some have commented that the rampant down-ranking of topics and posts whose only fault is promoting an idealogy different from the liberal consensus on the site, and not because of errors in content or clear trolling like many general aggregator websites, makes reddit little more than a "liberal echo chamber."

I recommend deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fimbulfamb (talk • contribs)

Can't disagree with that, so I removed it. Remember that you are encouraged to be bold and make such changes yourself. Thanks for pointing it out. Haakon (talk) 20:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Yet, any objective person would find it true. Atheism and socialism are often top topics and can be tracked day in and day out on the website. And both constitute far-left ideas with respect to American politics. Does wikipedia not honor honesty if it hurts the sensibilities of those who espouse such views when they are right called far-left by American standards? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Libertyaboveallelse (talk • contribs)

Oh, I absolutely agree with the statement, but just because some Wikipedia editors agree with something doesn't make it a neutral, objective fact. Statements about reddit's political bent can be included if it can be properly cited. Haakon (talk) 08:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Yahoo! Favicon

The favicon for Reddit now appears to be a Yahoo! symbol. Did Reddit get bought out by Yahoo!? Axeman (talk) 06:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Supported views

The community of Reddit in general is undoubtly leaning towards certain views. Posts that are anti-religion/pro-atheism, anti-Israel, pro-drugs often get to the front page (while ones opposing them have no chance of getting there), comments that support these views are also usually getting upvoted, while those opposing them get downvoted.

While this may not necessarily reflect the views of Reddit's administration, shouldn't there be a reference in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.125.153.182 (talk) 16:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Definitely, if someone can find a source that says this. Without a source, it would be original research. Haakon (talk) 16:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Improper language ("sob stories" et al)

"reddit (or "Reddit", as called by less literate wikipedians) is well known for its self-congratulation. This often revolves around giving random strangers money or pizza in exchange for sob stories"

doesn't strike one (irregardless of level of literacy) as terribly encyclopedic. It also lacks sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jann.poppinga (talk • contribs) 21:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Way29, 24 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} There is also a Reddit Sidebar for firefox which can be downloaded for free at https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/53873/

Way29 (talk) 06:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, please make any future requests in the format of "Please change x to y", otherwise it can be difficult for us to understand what edit you would like to be made. What would you like us to add to the article and where? Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 12:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.per above. Spitfire19 (Talk) 14:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Down in external links I suppose Way29 wants this

• reddit
• Fixxit (reddit's code repository)
• think you've reddit all? - Alexis' blog (the logo artist).
• reddit's job board

changed to this

• reddit
• Fixxit (reddit's code repository)
• think you've reddit all? - Alexis' blog (the logo artist).
• reddit's job board
• Reddit.com What\'s Hot and What\'s New scrolling ticker in your firefox side bar

74.84.109.41 (talk) 13:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The wikinews link is from 2008. Unless reddit recently sent Helen Thomas roses, it's more like History than News - that link. Of course, the info should be incorporated in the article before the link is deleted. I guess Way29 isn't up to doing that, either. 74.84.109.41 (talk) 14:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey Guys I made a whole bunch of edits

but if you ask me to source anything I will just trollface cause I am lazy. Problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmm... (talk • contribs) 04:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

"Myriad" & Locked Article

Is the reddit article locked? I'm unable to edit it to remove the "myriad" adjective used to describe the "Reddit Gold" account. "Myriad" means "thousands" or "many" -- reddit gold offers well under 10 additional features. Fairly misleading. --Redditdies (talk) 13:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Reddit bias?

Shouldn't it be referenced to in the article? The Reddit community appears to have really strong bias towards certain topics. Topics that share (radical?) liberal views, oppose religion, support the legalization of drugs, support web piracy and oppose Israel always make it to the front page of the website. While opposing views are usually "downvoted" and therefore gain much less attention. 84.229.129.56 (talk) 11:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Unless you provide a citation for it, its just an observation with no encyclopaedic value. Norlik (talk) 12:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Reddit has an undeniable liberal bias. This has been mentioned many times in this talk page, and definitely should be noted in the article. [Here] a conservative user talks about how he was banned from a sub-reddit for posting the same text for one day that a liberal user got away with posting for a year. Reddit also blocks unpopular conservative users from posting for 10 minutes at a time, while popular liberal users post at will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.47.241 (talk) 11:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, because reddit's engine figures out on its own its users political views —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.155.195.6 (talk) 11:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation

It's still very ambiguous the way it's written... pronounced like "read it". Is that a command, as in "you should read it", or is it past tense like "I read it in the newspaper yesterday"? (I know it should be the second way, but I don't know what the best way of clarifying that is). Amit (talk) 14:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It should be the second pronunciation, because Reddit's help page (which the pronunciation cites) uses the example sentence "I read it on reddit.". The words "read it" in this context are in the past tense, and should be pronounced "red" instead of like "reed". I'm going to change the intro to make it more clear. -Lebowbowbowski (talk) 23:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

upvoted/–67.241.190.171 (talk) 17:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

"Registration" section of infobox

Just wanted to clarify my edit... according to Template:Infobox website, the correct usage of the "registration" note is to say either "None", "Optional", or "Required". 175.137.88.17 made a good faith edit by including Reddit Gold in the registration field; however, to preserve consistency, I have changed the registration entry to "Optional". If there are disagreements, I would suggest posting on the talk page of the infobox template to possibly modify the current scheme.  Amit  ►  14:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality Disputed?

I have untagged this article as having a disputed neutrality because in every instance of its neutrality being disputed in this discussion page occurs, it has been resolved. If anybody is still disputing the article neutrality they must bring it up in here for discussion, not just "tag" it and leave. HorseloverFat (talk) 09:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Unverifiable Information about News Corporation acquisition

All of the information added to the reddit page regarding the supposed acquisition by News Corporation has no citations supporting it and is therefore unverifiable. I have reverted all of the edits regarding that to a previously verifiable revision (412791434). --Tobyw87 (talk) 08:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, needs sourcing. Rumors are not acceptable on Wikipedia. [CharlieEchoTango] 08:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

User:93.182.164.42 has reverted his edit about the News Corporation, yet has still not provided proper citation. If he continues to make this edit what is the process for getting an administrator to intervene? --Tobyw87 (talk) 08:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I have warned the user, if he continues to do so, do not hesitate to escalate the warning to a level 4 (final warning), and then if he doesn't stop, report it to WP:AIV. I'll keep an eye on the page. [CharlieEchoTango] 08:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

"reddit" or "Reddit"?

The article uses a mix of "reddit" or "Reddit". What should it be? --Mortense (talk) 16:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

It's officially lowercased (take a look at the reddit FAQ page, for example), and I am in favor of using the official casing. -- psyced (talk) 04:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Added demographics section

It would be helpful to also have the # of users if someone has a good source for that.--Babank (talk) 19:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

70.166.89.121 (talk) 06:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

comment structure

I was surprised to see that the way reddit handles comments wasn't mentioned in the article. (I don't know if it has a name or not. Perhaps I missed it and it was in the article. Sorry, if so.) For me, the biggest thing distinguishing reddit from the numerous other websites with a similar purpose is how comments are not organized in linear threads but in a tree-like structure. Leonxlin (talk) 16:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

It's worth mentioning, but it's not that distinguishing, other websites use the same format for comments, slashdot for example. man with one red shoe 16:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Demographics?

I'm sorry but there's no way the avg user is 35-44. Alexa.com suggests it's around 17. 137.30.122.155 (talk) 03:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)