Talk:Internet forum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article candidate Internet forum is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Forum directories and rankings[edit]

My contribution at 20:50, 28 July 2008, was reverted – [1]. I think many people can come to Wikipedia, at the Internet forum article, trying to find help when they search for a forum that they need. So I think my contribution was very usefull and not in violation of any of Wikipedia's politics. If it's considered that the way I presented the information is not good, I am nicely asking for advice for how to make it better. I think the reader should be helped to see not only what a forum is, but also what forums exist out there. thanks Ark25 (talk) 12:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It's "policies". The one you are refering to is WP:NOT, and wikipedia is not a collection of links elsewhere, it is not a directory. It would be acceptable to link to DMOZ, but what you added appeared to be spam. Moreover, such things belong in the "External links" section, per WP:MoS. ffm 13:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I have added it to the external links section, thanks for advice. Ark25 (talk) 14:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I will vote here for directories, let create another article of Wikipedia about directories of Forums, to collect most famous directories. I come here, after a 20 years of internet surfing, I'm not interesting in definitions and engines, I'm interesting in directories, in forums that really cool. (talk) 09:15, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2015[edit]

I believe it relevant to add that "Sock Puppeting" is a somewhat retired term, and that it has been replaced with the derogatory term "Samefagging." I also view that the term "Fag-" should be added as saying what an odd culture "lurks" on the internet, the word "fag" being replaced from derogatory to a generalized title. Dms1997 (talk) 07:02, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 07:30, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Wired URL broken[edit]

The link to the Wired article at the end of this sentence is 404:

‘In areas such as Japan, registration is frequently optional and anonymity is sometimes even encouraged.’

The URL should be updated to: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. 97198 (talk) 01:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Some research[edit]

Hoping to find some source for Comparison of Internet forum software, I instead found a lot of other fashionable topics covered, with some touch of forums.

Recommendations: [2], doi:10.1109/MARK.2010.5623811, [3], doi:10.1177/1063293X10373824, doi:10.1145/1871437.1871511

Data mining: [4] [5] doi:10.1007/978-3-642-29253-8_70 [6], doi:10.1109/TKDE.2012.56, [7], doi:10.1007/978-3-642-12165-4_30 (phpBB, SMF), doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-1557-2_13 (dark web), doi:10.1109/IHMSC.2013.175, doi:10.1109/ICCSN.2011.6014309 (topic detection), doi:10.1007/s10791-011-9166-8, doi:10.1109/IIAI-AAI.2016.246 (facilitation in a forum corpus)

Statistics on forums: doi:10.2196/jmir.1591 (activity analysis), [8] (performance of participants), doi:10.1145/2531602.2531731 (quality), doi:10.1177/1049732315609567 (general benefits of forums), doi:10.1145/2531602.2531662 (reputation in one forum)

Feature selection: [9] (chose Discuz), [10] (Not especially relevant, but this thesis lists many possible features)

Reputation systems: doi:10.1145/2531602.2531657

Spam: doi:10.1109/INFCOM.2011.5935048 (some forums mentioned, but no real information on them), doi:10.1109/POLICY.2012.19 (policy enforcement)

Not useful: doi:10.1108/00242531011087033 (libraries and any OSS), doi:10.2190/TW.41.4.c (Linux Forum and phpBB forum analysis)

--Nemo 11:27, 15 October 2016 (UTC)