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
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.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
This article is a list of notable Internet phenomena, which have been discussed in RELIABLE SOURCES. It is not simply for things that you believe are well-known.
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Q1: Why isn't (insert meme name here) mentioned in this article?
A1: Wikipedia is not an infinite repository of indiscriminate information; we cannot mention those phenomena which do not meet a standard of notability and verifiability.
Q2: What does it take to make a new addition to the list?
A3: This is an enforcement of Wikipedia policy, to ensure that only factual detail is added, and to prevent synthesis and original research, which may pose problems such as factual errors and conflict of interest.
Q4: Finding sources is boring. Can't somebody else do it?
A4: The burden of finding sources is on you, as the contributor, not on any other editor. Contributors are required to find credible sources on their own, and not rely on other editors in obtaining sources.
If you are going to submit a new section into the discussion it is meant to go at the bottom of the talk page not the top
And why in the world would reliable news sites cover something like this? It's funny alright, but the audience is laughing at people (i.e. making fun of something), which isn't exactly good thing/nice behavior. There are some things which may be funny, but it's downright bad; no reliable news site would cover these types of "lulz" memes. But if it's big enough, it may be reported and grouped into the "trolling"/"griefing" category - once again, systemic bias. - M0rphzone00:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was the person who originally wrote Talk:List of Internet phenomena/FAQ, and I am aware of the dilemma that we currently have here. The thing is, Wikipedia is built upon policies such as WP:N, WP:RS, WP:V and WP:OR - technically we cannot include entries that do not have their notability verified by reliable sources in order to prevent original research, which is prohibited for obvious reasons. The problem is, that's not how internet memes work. Internet memes become prolific based on what internet users do with the memes, and not how they're reported by The New York Times. In essence, this article, List of Internet phenomena, is somewhat of a fallacy, because under Wikipedia policy we're only allowed to include entries that seedy, uncool 40-year old men have written about in (insert newspaper here), and anything here is at the mercy of journalists, which is not what memes are about. Journalists only choose what they want to report, and their words may not necessarily reflect the reality situation of what internet memes are like. Have fun trying to explain that to WP:Village pump though. I am a right-wing adherent of Wikipedia policy, however I must state that this article has become worth no more than shit (you may as well rename it "List of Internet phenomena that caught the interest of 40-year old hairy men working for newspaper companies"), simply as a result of Wikipedia policy; I guess it can't be helped. -- 李博杰 | —Talkcontribsemail03:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can't be helped? Wikipedia policy needs to be updated to reflect Internet-related topics that are not touched upon by traditional paper-to-website news sources. Raw statistics data should be allowed to be used for supporting claims by providing evidence that something happened while additional sources explain and support the reasons/explanations. - M0rphzone (talk) 00:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP can only report on what reliable sources identify as important. If the average day-to-day happens on the Internet such as in the form of memes aren't covered by reliable sources away from the internet, that's unfortunate, life goes on. Besides, this is meant to be examples, not a full listing. Sites like KYM exist for satisfy the curiousity of all identified memes; it's not WP job to fully qualify them. --MASEM (t) 03:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
^"This user is a professional gamer." \o/ but you're a sysop too, so you play by the "rules" :/ But who says we can't and shouldn't ignore them when they get in the way of improving WP? (No need to reply btw). - M0rphzone (talk) 04:08, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After adding a few others I thought unsourcable until I stumbled on them, I found some reasonable sources for the AGK, so up it is. --MASEM (t) 19:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Under "Email", wot about Craig Shergold (or Sherwood, or Sherman, etc.)
This was an internet legend that came out at about the same time as the Marcus-Neimann Cookie recipe. Craig was a little boy in England who at the time was supposedly dying of cancer and wanted to make a name for himself in the Guiness Book or Records as the holder of the most business cards. My understanding is that he went into remission and at this time would like everyone to stop sending him their business cards. He apparently is also no longer a "little boy" either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.164.38.47 (talk) 10:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Having received over 350 million greeting cards today and making it into Guinness Book is certainly notable, though Craig Shergold himself just wants the damn mail to stop. Added to the list, since this is most definitely an "internet phenomena". WTF? (talk) 02:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Edit request on 11 July 2012
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Can you add an entry to the music section called "Call Me Maybe"? The Description is "“Call Me Maybe” - a pop song by Canadian singer-songwriter Carly Rae Jepsen from her 2012 EP album Curiousity. The song rose to fame online after being promoted by pop star Justin Bieber in December of 2011. Since its release, the song has inspired many lip dubs, parodies and covers on the video sharing site YouTube."
For the "Angry German Kid / Keyboard Crasher" can you add ..."The video was uploaded on April,12 2006 and was intended for parents who are concerned about their children what will happen to their child who are playing violent video games and the side effects caused by the Columbine Shootings on April,20 1999[Edit request on 11 July 2012 1]
^[www.youtube.com/watch?v=5usx4mQg6x8 "AGK the untold facts"]. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help)
A citation that meets WP:RS is required to make such a claim in order for that information to be listed. If you can find a citation in a regular news outlet, it could possibly be added. WTF? (talk) 13:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I almost didn't notice you adding the link the a youtube video in a REF tag on your previous posts, since REF tags don't show up in talk pages. Nevertheless, that is NOT a reliable source according to Wikipedia's guidelines. Very, very, very few things posted to Youtube qualify as "reliable sources" (I suggest you read WP:RS). In this case, the video was uploaded by someone using the username of "PolskaRezystans", who also put a rather official-looking "WPLS-TV" attribution in his amateur-looking video. A google search for "WPLS-TV" reveals that this is not mainstream media outlet. Since we have no way to verify the credentials or journalistic integreity of "PolskaRezystans", nor do we know who this person actually is, the source cannot be considered credible for inclusion in Wikipedia. Merely being a "Youtube personality" and claiming to have "one of the more unique channels on Youtube" does not establish journalistic credibility.
Could the example for creepypasta be changed? I mean Smile Dog is notable, but without question the Slender Man is the most famous example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.62.227 (talk • contribs)
No citation was found for the 'smile dog' that was mentioned, though there are lots of images of that posted on the Internet. I revised the text using the scary girl image in the New York Times article, and also found a citation mentioning slender man, which was also added. I also removed the wikilink on Creepypasta, which went to someone's description in their userspace and not to an actual article. It's not acceptable to link to things in userspace from article mainspace. WTF? (talk) 15:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I tried looking for articles on this person. There does seem to be a few, but all are in a very disparging tone to the person, and thus I'd fear inclusion may be a WP:BLP issue. (Eg: for the Star Wars Kid while it is possible to actually go outside WP and find his real name (in recent sources too), we don't attach it because of the negative connotations of that video to that person. This would seem to be the same case). If you have sourced that put him as an internet phenom in a positive like (more akin to something like Tron Guy) that would work, but we need those sources. --MASEM (t) 19:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It is best to leave his name out. Furthermore, the purpose of this page is not to make "celebrities" out of heretofore unknown random Internet users, but to document the truly novel Internet phenomena that arises online. An actual person need not be involved, although I think that there is an inherent tendency of people to want to make someone into a "celebrity" this way. WTF? (talk) 21:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The description of Creepypasta is no longer accurate, given that it has evolved past this. The text that's currently in the article refers to the genre's earlier times, but Creepypasta is now much more defined and encompasses more types of stories.
To fix this without going into unnecessary detail, you could do the following two modifications. First, add "Initially..." to the beginning of the first sentence, to get "Initially urban legends or scary stories...", and change the verbs in that paragraph to past tense. Then add a sentence at the end that says "In recent years, Creepypasta have evolved into any scary, creepy or otherwise unsettling stories posted on the Internet, as can be seen in websites like www.creepypasta.com and www.creepypastaindex.com."
Unless we have reliable sources that point to these sites or how its changed, we can't add it here. --MASEM (t) 13:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why does this not even have a lock?
Why are certain pages on wikipedia not shown with why they are protected? We cant have people exploiting this article and removing the locks like they did in black history month, this is unacceptable.184.98.143.25 (talk) 07:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
