|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Doxing article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|Sources for development of this article may be located at|
I'd like to start a discussion on the correct spelling of the word. I've heard it used in both 'doxxing' and 'doxing'. Though I suppose it's arbitrary, I think it's valuable to try to settle the ambiguous spelling.
- I've personally never seen it spelled with "xx" in its natural context (by someone who might be seeking/posting such information) and it were just the BBC article, I don't think that would be sufficient (just like if a single source called it "ddox1ngz0r" that wouldn't be worth bolding in the lead). Regardless, it's certainly been spelled that way enough in the media to merit the alternative spelling: On the Media (NPR), Daily Beast, Aljazeera, Poynter. --— Rhododendrites talk | 13:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- I feel like I've seen "doxxing" at least as frequently as "doxing" but don't prefer either spelling as long as the use is consistent. FWIW, Google has "doxxing" with 1,080,000 hits and "doxing" with 408,000. However, consulting Google Trends, the first blip appears for "doxing" in May 2010 and "doxxing" doesn't appear until July 2012, over two years later.-Ich (talk) 02:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- Of the two sources used for the "doxxing" spelling, the On The Media link added correction at the top:
I did a Google Trends search on usage of "doxing" vs. "doxxing" and found that "doxing" is by far the older and more common usage. I will leave this article as is, but will use the single X version of the word from now on. 
- I don't think it's a good source for the alternate spelling and should be removed. Deadname (talk) 10:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
This has come up before. There are sources for "document tracing" (despite them not being cited here), but I think those are a minority and may have a single origin that isn't at all connected to those who first began using the term. I think we can all agree "doxing" involves some version of "documents" ("docs"), but everything beyond that seems like speculation. Until we can figure out if there's an intelligible origin or consensus emerges about what the body of reliable sources say, I've just gone ahead and cut it out. The version I removed also included the part of speech (that it's "the verb form..."), which might be appropriate as part of an etymology section, but not the lead because Wikipedia is about concepts not, as a general principle, words. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- Doxing: An Etymology has relevant information, including the verb form. The Atlantic is an RS. The article claims information was gleaned from Know Your Meme, which I consider pretty reliable but is maybe not a reliable source by WP. There is also an On the Media article THE PROBLEM WITH "DOXXING" that has useful information. --Mark viking (talk) 23:33, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- I've added a reference that is vetted by Oxford University Press, so no need to depend upon KnowYourMeme. The Atlantic an On the Media sources could be used for a short WP:WORDISSUBJECT etymology section that expanded on that aspect of the topic, though; those references show that there's some encyclopedic "social or historical significance" for the word itself. Diego (talk) 17:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Some moron added a false claim that Gamergate harasses its opponents and cited The Guardian as proof. Notably absent is any of the thousands of times that social justice nazis have harassed and doxxed anyone who questioned their monstrous ideology. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 23:45, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- For the benefit of editors who are actually WP:HERE:
- Be WP:CIVIL and avoid name-calling (such as 'moron').
- Relatedly we have a policy of WP:No personal attacks which specifically deems it unacceptable to refer to others as 'nazis'.
- Wikipedia strives for WP:Verifiability, not truth so whether a claim may actually be true or false is beside the point.
- Relatedly, Wikipedia relies not on proof, but rather on sources that are WP:RELIABLE.
- Talk pages such as this one are WP:NOTAFORUM but rather for discussing improvement of the article.
- As such editors are welcome to suggest reliable sources with information relevant to the topic at hand. Happy editing. Lklundin (talk) 12:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- There's an easy way to fix this. Just find WP:RS that either states that GamerGate does not dox, or counter with evidence that anti-GG/Feminists/etc do. Wikipedia is bound by their own rules, or at least, they claim to be... so it should be easy enough to counter the bull shit with reliable sources of our own. It's not like feminists/anti-GGers look for factual sources, just "reliable" ones anyway... --Lithorien (talk) 03:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Is this practice illegal in any jurisdiction?
The first link on Google claims it is but if you follow the sources it takes you to this random blog. I've got to say, I'm not convinced. The example given, Barret Brown, was charged because the victim was a federal employee (in the US). The reasons stated "Common sense would tell you that bullying or jeopardizing another would be illegal in some way" sounds pretty ignorant of how law works.
It appears to be legal in the US. “You can post it as long as there is nothing nefarious about it,” says LAPD cyber crimes detective Andrew Kleinick. “They are public figures and that kind of thing happens. It’s not right, [but] I know of no crime.” http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/03/13/doxxing-it-s-like-hacking-but-legal.html