Jump to content

Talk:Reddit

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Austin.Lira (article contribs). This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tortalyni (article contribs).


The Button

I think somebody should add a section about the new button on reddit, I think it might be noteworthy. --JumpingCactus (talk) 22:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jumpingcactus: wasn't that just an April Fools' Day event? Danotto94 (talk) 03:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As a note, an article was created at The Button (Reddit) ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 20:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SuperHamster: @JumpingCactus: unsure if you noticed but there's now a section based on it. Anarchyte (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TIL

I really dont think the section on "Today I Learned" needs to be there. It has no sources (other than about what "TIL" stands for) and doesn't warrant its own section. StewdioMACK Talk page 05:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, it is the 4th largest subreddit (according to http://redditlist.com/). It does look like it was just written by a moderator or frequent user of that sub, however, and reads more like an advert than a factual description. Supernova190 (talk) 17:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, why the 4th largest subreddit and not the largest subreddit? And this section on /r/ShowerThoughts is so devoid of information, clearly it has no reason to be. I guess what I'm saying is, I'm definitely in favor of deleting these sections. The AMA section is fine, AMAs are a thing that gets regular coverage in reliable sources. --SubSeven (talk) 21:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have the same concerned with the /r/ShowerThoughts section as well. Only 2 sources, both of them coming from the subreddit itself. Zappa24Mati 03:56, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]


I'm leading towards deleting both sections and leaving only the AMAs. Both are low quality, don't provide useful information, and aren't particularly unique to reddit (whereas AMAs are). If anyone would like to rework them and add them back, or has ideas for other important subreddits, please feel free to contribute. Supernova190 (talk) 19:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest creating a table for all subreddits with some info on the most relevant subs. Alternatively there could be a new article for it -> e.g. List of subreddits ("List of subreddits on Reddit" is kind of tautological). --Fixuture (talk) 20:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Would there necessarily be anything wrong with doing both? A table with short descriptions in the main reddit article, and then moving the full length sections to a separate list page could work. Supernova190 (talk) 15:36, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I second that. However we probably should decide on which subreddits the main article should feature (each as short subsections of the "Subreddits"-section). I'd suggest /r/IAMA, /r/AskScience, /r/ExplainLikeImFive (and maybe: /r/AskReddit, /r/TodayILearned, /r/Worldnews)
The list could then be linked on top of the "Subreddits" section.
--Fixuture (talk) 17:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Google info pane. (image change)

Google has a standard website sidebar for a small gist of an article which links to wikipedia, including links and more info. And when searching for reddit, it looks like this.

It seems unprofessional and I think it should be changed, as transparent images become black. I suggest something like this instead: http://www.redditstatic.com/about/assets/reddit-alien.svg. -AychAych AychAych (talk) 22:37, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's not a matter of Wikipedia / this article but Google. Maybe try that feedback button there. I guess Google gets the icon from an app in its play store (of which it got the license for the logo) or something like that. --Fixuture (talk) 22:55, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2015

Under the heading "Philanthropic Efforts", please add this:

In December 2014, the subreddit MillionaireMakers was born. The idea behind this experiment is that if one million people were to donate $1 to a person, we could make that person a millionaire. Once a month, a Redditor is selected at random and deemed that month's "winner". Once the winner is selected, everyone else donates $1 to the winner. As of May 2015, over $30,000 in individual donations have been given to the winners.

Djbr22 (talk) 20:37, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 05:36, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also I'm sekeptical to what extend that would classify as "philanthopic". From the article Philanthropy:
Instances of philanthropy commonly overlap with instances of charity, though not all charity is philanthropy, or vice versa. The difference commonly cited is that charity relieves the pains of social problems, whereas philanthropy attempts to solve those problems at their root causes (the difference between giving a hungry man a fish, and teaching him how to fish for himself). A person who practices philanthropy is called a philanthropist.
A lottery or at least random selection of the price's winner isn't really philanthopic - actually it isn't even necessarily "relieving pains of social problems"...it's just making some random stranger happy. --Fixuture (talk) 16:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The banning of /r/fatpeoplehate

Considering how much vandalism is going on reddit currently, and how controversial the /r/announcements post was...well, everything's gone crazy. But I think this should be mentioned on the page, if not now, but in the future when all this settles down. Robotortoise (talk) 05:57, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It has been added, the sources is a breitbart article, there are numerous more neutral articles that also mention it, it looks to me like it should be expanded. CombatWombat42 (talk) 15:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the introduction it says that "Reddit became a direct subsidiary of Condé Nast's parent company, Advance Publications, in September 2011."

I would do it myself, but I can't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.203.149.84 (talk) 22:24, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conflation of Taylor's firing with Jackson's AMA

I'm not able to edit due to semiprotection, and this request for removal is likely to be contested; however, to me this looks like a novel synthesis. The section #IAmA and AMA currently states that Taylor's firing "coincides with an AMA on the site with Jesse Jackson that has been reported as having apalling [sic] performance". Spelling aside, there's no evidence of a connection, only speculation, and even the Breitbart article used as a source only claims that it was "after", not "because of" the derailed interview. It is, perhaps, fine to note that the Jackson AMA went badly, but it's impermissible to imply in Wikipedia's voice that there is a connection, without a source that gives an explicit connection. The best solution is just to delete the mention of the Jackson AMA for now; it was bad, but there have been worse ones that are not singled out in the article. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 05:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done: It's speculation. I doubt that she was fired because of that. If someone wants to readd it, it should state that this is speculation. Some introductory info on that issue: https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/3bx23y/whats_the_deal_with_the_jesse_jackson_ama/ --Fixuture (talk) 19:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New Reddit Search Page

I Want to Be Able to Access Legacy Search Without Logging in, How Can Visitors Do It? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.49.73.83 (talk) 17:33, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2015

In the section History, please change the mention of "Redditmade" from "On October 29, 2014, Reddit comes to the crowdfunding field with Redditmade, a service that allows moderators to create merchandise for their subreddits. Redditmade was later closed in February 2015." to "In October 2014, Reddit announced Redditmade, a service which allowed moderators to create merchandise for their subreddits. Redditmade closed in February 2015." (citation omitted for clarity, but should be retained). Reason: removal of promotional language and general concision. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 06:09, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Bazj (talk) 07:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting Rings / Brigading

No mention of how prevalent voting rings and brigading is? It's practically part of Reddit culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.171.27.230 (talk) 21:33, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Technology

Nothing about the 503 page? At certain times of the day all Reddit serves is 503's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.171.27.230 (talk) 21:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. Sometimes reddit sends 503 pages, but if you want this information included in the article, you need to find a source talking about the 503. --Frmorrison (talk) 20:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2015

Please change Alexa rank from 31 to 32. Source: http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/reddit.com Bgmota (talk) 11:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - Arjayay (talk) 12:21, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2015

Reddit is a lowercase word. Change the name of the page as well as all the "Reddit"s you find. Dan6233 (talk) 00:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: - please see Talk:Reddit/Archive 1#"reddit" or "Reddit"? and Talk:Reddit/Archive 2#reddit is lowercase. Existing consensus is that the proper use is to capitalize the name. If you think that consensus has changed and that we should render the title in lowercase, you will need to have a discussion first. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 01:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I checked out MOS:TMRULES and indeed, reddit should have a capital R. Well, thanks. Dan6233 (talk) 01:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ellen Pao ousting

The controversy section should have something about the unfounded hatred towards Ellen Pao and how it led to her resignation. The subsequent comments by co-founder Yishan made it clear that Pao in fact stood for free speech rather than corporate interests.

From nymag.com "She became an easy scapegoat for the predominantly young and male Redditors, who, very maturely, had taken to calling her Chairman Pao." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluebibb (talk • contribs) 05:37, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

reddit and adblockplus whitelist

should since Reddit is a famous website that is compliant with the adblock plus acceptable ads whitelist should this have a new section in reddit wikipedia article and Reddits ads are compliant with these rules



"Static advertisements only (no animations, sounds or similar) Preferably text only, no attention-grabbing images Ad placement: Ads should never obscure page content (e.g. require users to click a button to close the ad before viewing the page). For pages featuring a reading text ads should not be placed in the middle, where they interrupt the reading flow. However, they can be placed above the text content, below it or on the sides. The same applies to search results pages: paid search results cannot be mixed with organic results. When ads are placed above the content of a main page, they should not require the user to scroll down. The available vertical space is likely to be at least 700 pixels. Advertising should not occupy more than one-third of that height. Paid search results on search pages are allowed to occupy more space, but they should never outnumber organic results. When placed on the side ads should leave enough space for the main content. The available horizontal space can be expected to be at least 1000 pixels, and advertising should not occupy more than a third of that width. Advertising should be clearly marked as such with the word "advertising" or its equivalent, and it should be distinguishable from page content, for instance via a border and/or different a background color. Marking and placement requirements do not apply for hyperlinks with affiliate referrer IDs embedded in the content of the page. Additional criteria for hyperlinks with affiliate referrer IDs: Redirects originating from the hyperlink should not present any other webpage than the destination page. In texts, not more than 2 percent of the words can be hyperlinked for monetization purposes. Hyperlinks should not be formatted or behave differently than other links. Hyperlinks should not be misleading, in either content or placement."



These criteria are not necessarily final; we are always working at improving them. In particular, we want to require that every user's privacy is respected (e.g. mandatory Do Not Track support). However, we are not yet in a position to enforce that requirement." Sources for proof https://adblockplus.org/en/acceptable-ads#criteria


http://thenextweb.com/insider/2013/02/05/reddit-whitelisted-by-adblock-plus-for-using-acceptable-online-advertisements/

https://adblockplus.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11954

--Jonnymoon96 (talk) 02:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is important. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 02:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonnymoon96: I think you could add this info to the Adblock Plus article, but I don't think it's notable enough for this article. --Fixuture (talk) 19:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2016

Insertion for philanthropy section: "In response to the 2015 Nepal Earthquake, redditors raised more than $145,000 for Direct Relief and more than $110,000 for MAP International." [1] Fourist (talk) 20:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia  fredgandt 03:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.redditblog.com/2015/05/an-update-on-what-reddit-community-has.html

Include information about the official mobile Reddit app.

In the Technology section there's some info about unofficial apps and discontinued Alien Blue, but nothing about the official mobile app released yesterday. 83.6.169.244 (talk) 18:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now there is info on the official app and that Alien Blue is gone. --Frmorrison (talk) 20:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of the most subscribed subreddits

Maybe this should be a thing, either within the Reddit article or in its own article. We have List of the most subscribed users on YouTube, so why can't we have a list of the (probably 25) most-subscribed subreddits? BanjoZebra BanjoZebra (talk) 04:47, 25 April 2016 (UTC)(talk)[reply]

IAmA

The meaning of IAmA is not explained. --Espoo (talk) 19:42, 27 July 2016 (UTC):[reply]

It is already explained by saying it means "I am a". That seems like enough information. --Frmorrison (talk) 13:47, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Self-Posts now do give Karma - incorrect statement in article

The 2nd paragraph under the section "Users" states that "Self posts do not accumulate karma points for the submitter, but they can still be voted on like other content.". This used to be the case, but has recently been changed. See here: https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/4tmb16/karma_for_textposts_aka_selfposts/

Since I don't have an account and this is a semi-protected article, I would like to request the section to be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8108:4E40:649:3D1F:EB0E:72F3:F1AB (talk) 17:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When things change sometimes that does not get updated, thanks for pointing that out. I revised the requested text. --Frmorrison (talk) 17:52, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2016

Add owners as Advance_Publications

Wokparty (talk) 19:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. nyuszika7h (talk) 20:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Rework the introduction

It's biased as hell - the main problems of reddit need to be listed instead of censored. There is a reason why the controversy section is by far the largest of the article. It's obvious that some of the editors are letting their personal feeling in the way of facts and that needs to stop. 2A02:8109:B0BF:CE0B:CC06:CF27:F86E:846B (talk) 16:42, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need to be more specific. Biased in what way? What is being censored? Which editors have obviously let their personal feelings affect the content of the article? Which facts are incorrect? Deli nk (talk) 16:52, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the above such doesn't belong into the introduction but the appropriate section. Also the controversy section being the largest of an article is typically a problem, so be glad that it remains that large. --Fixuture (talk) 18:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2016

The phonetic transcription for the word "reddit" should be changed to [ɹɛɾɪt], as in standard English (American and British), the alveolar trill [r] does not exist and is instead replaced by the alveolar rhotic approximant [ɹ]. The alveolar tap [ɾ] should be present in the transcription instead of [d], as in standard English (all standards) this words would be pronounced as "read it" with a tap inervocally instead of the true stop [d]. 2001:56A:717A:C400:E155:4028:89C4:35AF (talk) 04:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: I tried to make the requested edit, but it apparently is not supported in the template used. I did not see the alveolar tap [ɾ] in Template:IPAc-en. Please take a look and try again, or request a different edit. Sorry.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  05:07, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Upvotes

I'm not an experienced wikipedia editor, but it mentioned that as of April, Barack Obama's AMA was the most popular on Reddit. I don't have the authority to change it, but I think someone should. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6001:E408:9400:70F2:8758:976C:EACE (talk) 04:56, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April Fools Section

The year before "the button" there was a large april fools event held as a competition between /r/Periwinkle and /r/Orangered. It should probably be added to the article as well, seeing as it spun off an independent game still played on reddit. 2600:8801:680:149:24CE:EED6:3C35:80CB (talk) 22:02, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that April Fool's event was in 2013. Provide a non-Reddit source to reference that event then perhaps it can be added. --Frmorrison (talk) 14:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

reddit banning r/altright

i believe reddit banning r/altright was probably controversial especially among the people who are currently part of the alt-right and It was notable and should be under Controversies 2017 in reddit article on wikipedia

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonnymoon96 (talk • contribs)

Then add it? You got good sources. Both The Guardian and Business Insider mention that some users and moderators dispute the official reason given, even making accusations against the admins. If that's not a widely reported controversy I don't know what is.Saturnalia0 (talk) 09:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Resnick, Gideon (2 February 2017). "Reddit Bans Alt-Right Group". The Daily Beast. Retrieved 2017-02-15.
  2. ^ "Alt Right Subreddit Banned". AltRight.com. 13 February 2017. Retrieved 2017-02-15.
  3. ^ "Reddit Bans 'Alt-Right' Discussion Forums". PCMAG.
  4. ^ "Reddit shuts down 'alt-right' subreddit". CNET.
  5. ^ "'Alt-right' groups banned from Reddit in shock move". RT International.
  6. ^ "Reddit bans a major alt-right community — and there may be a very good reason". Business Insider.
  7. ^ Hern, Alex (2 February 2017). "Reddit bans far-right groups altright and alternativeright". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077 – via The Guardian.

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2017

Currently the wiki article states that Reddit has 150 employees. It cites this article as a source for that statistic. However the article makes no mention of the number of people employed by Reddit. The stat should be removed until a better source can be found. Xentity1x (talk) 23:22, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Partly done: Added {{nicg}} tag. JTP (talk • contribs) 01:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I found a source that says 100

Add on AMA's

AMA's have also been used by people of interest.Ken Bone gained fame from appearing on the 2016 Presidential Town Hall Debate. During his AMA, he did not use a new Reddit account which showed his comment history. His comment history sparked controversy from comments he made on Trayvon Martin, NSFW photos, and his involvement in forging car insurance documents. (http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/14/technology/ken-bone-reddit/) Palomerg (talk) 20:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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. JTP (talk • contribs) 20:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2017

In September 2016, a Redditor named mormondocuments released tens of administrative documents belonging to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,

Please change, released tens of administrative to released tens of thousands of administrative.

Thanks! 50.252.34.101 (talk) 11:35, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Partly done: changed it to "thousands", as the first cited source only said thousands, 2nd cited source didn't provide a number Cannolis (talk) 13:50, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2017

According to Alexa 500, Reddit is now the 7th most visited page in the world, rather than the 9th, as indicated. Jtoews21 (talk) 01:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. While it is true that in the top 100 websites on Alexa shows Reddit as number 7, on Reddit's Alexa page it says 9. Since the reference used to show its ranking is the individual page, I think it should remain at 9 for now. --Frmorrison (talk) 13:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trimming IAmA

There were over 20 names dropped on the IAmA section, most only with links to reddit itself (when secondary sources are needed):

A number of notable individuals have participated in the IAmA subreddit or in an AMA, some of whom have appeared multiple times. Notable people who participated in the IAmA subreddit itself include then-United States President Barack Obama[35] (while campaigning for the 2012 election[36]), Dave Grohl,[37] Madonna,[38] Chris Hadfield (who answered questions from the International Space Station),[39] Bill Gates,[40] Ron Paul,[41] Stephen Colbert,[42] Psy,[43] Arnold Schwarzenegger (twice),[44]), Rachel Maddow,[45] Robin Williams,[46] Renée Fleming,[47] M. Shadows,[48] Louis C.K.,[49] Roger Federer,[50] Larry King (twice),[51]), Philip Zimbardo,[52] Bill Nye (three times),[53] Stan Lee,[54] John Mather,[55] David Copperfield,[56] Michael Moore,[57] Spike Lee,[58] Paul Krugman,[59] Danny Boyle,[60] Al Gore (twice),[61] Roger Ebert,[62] Michael Bolton,[63] Gary Johnson twelve times (once with Bill Weld[64] and 11 times by himself[65]), Lawrence Krauss (three times, once with Richard Dawkins),[66] Jill Stein (twice),[67] Kevin Rudd,[68] Julie Benz,[69] Amanda Palmer,[70] Tim Ferriss,[71] Gordon Ramsay,[72] Peter Dinklage,[73] Chandra Wickramasinghe,[74] Neil deGrasse Tyson,[75] and Bernie Sanders.[76] Other notable people participated in AMAs in other subreddits. For instance, J. Cole participated in an AMA in the /r/hiphopheads subreddit;[77] Enya had an AMA on the /r/music subreddit;[78] and Donald Trump had an AMA on the /r/The_Donald subreddit during his 2016 presidential campaign.[79]

Besides polluting the paragraph, being somewhat promotional and arbitrary, most mentions only cite reddit itself. I have removed all names that did not cite secondary sources. I also removed links to reddit when secondary sources are already present. I have added secondary sources for Bill Gates and Donald Trump's AMA because I remember seeing them. I invite watching editors to add secondary sources to establish weight to any names they think should be added back. I also suggest, if editors believe an extensive listing is desirable, that they start a List article of AMA participants -- only the most relevant names, as established by secondary sources, should be present in this article.Saturnalia0 (talk) 23:22, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Saturnalia0: I added these sources to reddit since it was weird that some listings were cited to reddit while others weren't cited at all. I didn't do any research to see if there were secondary sources but almost all of them have secondary sources,
I think we can make it a bulleted list rather than add it as a new article. epicgenius (talk) 02:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement

I added a section in list form here (my user sandbox) which we can work on.

Or we could just add the sources into the original paragraph. epicgenius (talk) 02:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a good looking list.PUNKMINKIS (TALKYTALK) 13:18, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

r/The_Donald going private

This probably isn't incredibly worthy of note yet, but it seems that yesterday the subreddit r/The_Donald decided to go private in response to the admins taking some action against them.

While this may or may not be in the news/reliable sources yet, there's a few threads on reddit itself about it. More:

We should probably at least be ready to add this to the page if we can.

AManNamedEdwan (talk) 12:19, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AManNamedEdwan: There's an article for /r/The_Donald. I think we could add it there. epicgenius (talk) 16:18, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At 8:41pm ET on 5/19/2017, Reddit Admins removed three The_Donald mods without warning. This was punishment for our refusal to comply to a special set of rules that were imposed only on this subreddit and prevented our members from fully enjoying reddit or our mods from defending users against harassment. We've temporarily gone dark in a show of strength against these unfair restrictions. Check back at 9 PM EST on 5/20 for an announcement. Looks like it might be made public again, but being a sub with 400,000 members, this may be marginally significant. epicgenius (talk) 16:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@AManNamedEdwan: /r/The_Donald going private was recently reported by International Business Times. Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 19:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2017

The source for the pew research center text is wrong in the demographic section, it points to information about twitter. Below is the suggested change to the Demographic section, with correct source and added authors:

In 2016 the Pew Research Center published research showing that 4% of U.S. adults use reddit, of which 67% are men. 78% of users use Reddit to get news from the site. As of the end of 2016, Reddit is the only major social media platform that does not have a female majority user base.[1] Miszt (talk) 11:00, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks Miszt. I removed the bit about the female majority user base per [1]. A bit sad that the Pew Research Center approximates 78% as "about seven-in-ten"! Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 13:23, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They have actually updated the article. The 78% didn't figure in the first draft, and pdf title is now "Nearly eight-in-ten". I don't know if we should reference the pdf instead of the website.[2] Miszt (talk) 07:51, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Barthel, Michael; Stoking, Galen; Holcomb, Jesse; Mitchell, Amy (February 25, 2016). "Seven-in-Ten Reddit Users Get News on the Site". Pew Research Center. Retrieved May 28, 2017. While just 4% of U.S. adults report using Reddit, about seven-in-ten of these users (78%) get news on the site.
  2. ^ url=http://www.journalism.org/files/2016/02/PJ_2016.02.25_Reddit_FINAL.pdf

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Reddit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:52, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of subreddits

Several subreddits have their own Wikipedia articles now. More might in the future. Previously the article introduced a couple of subreddits as subsections. I deleted this information and now presented a list of subreddits, including those which have their own articles.

I think that it would be sufficient to give a list item to subreddits which have their own notability rather than summarizing them with more text here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 10:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rule for creating new subreddits is incorrect

In the article it says "Any registered user who has maintained an account for 31 days or more may create a subreddit.". However, that is not quite true (and the source given is suboptimal). Please refer to https://www.reddit.com/r/help/wiki/faq#wiki_creating_subreddits. There are two criteria, not just the one. 81.152.17.74 (talk) 13:16, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even know why that was there, it's WP:NOTHOWTO, unimportant and likely to change with time. Removed it. Saturnalia0 (talk) 16:11, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Reddit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:59, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Reddit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reddit manipulates its front page in order to suppress some subreddits for political reasons

For example, if you aren't logged in, the front page shows nothing from The_Donald subreddit, no matter which other options do you choose, even though many The_Donald posts are well in the range of likes that qualifies them to be on the front page. But when you are logged in and subscribed to The_Donald, the front page magically gets some posts from The_Donald! They suppress some subreddits that they don't like and promote some other, mostly meaningless subreddits. Promoted subreddits are mostly about animals, jokes, girlfriends, and other neutral things. Such suppression should be reflected on the wiki page, because it is obviously done for political reasons. Reddit owners support their brand of politics this way. 24.4.131.132 (talk) 22:52, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Reddit&oldid=823382786"