Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/4chan

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:46, 23 September 2008 [1].

4chan[edit]

Nominator(s): Giggy (talk)


I've been working on and off on this one for a few months, and I think it's now the best it's going to get—and thus, of an FA standard. It's an interesting topic; a notorious website that incidentally produces a fair bit of vandalism around here. Obviously, the amount of information in reliable sources was not excessive, but I've done what I could with the information available. There's a peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/4chan/archive1 with source comments by Ealdgyth and a great prose review from Dabomb87, so thanks to both. Thanks also to everyone who takes a look and comments here. Cheers, Giggy (talk) 08:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by jimfbleak 4chan was started in 2003 in the bedroom of "moot", a 15 year old from New York City. later moot grew up in suburban New York City and started 4chan in his bedroom in 2003. Doesn't need saying twice. "moot" heading - is the lc deliberate? jimfbleak (talk) 11:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jim, fixed that issue up. The lowercase on "moot" is deliberate; all uses of his name on the Internet are lowercased. Giggy (talk) 11:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Support Nice work, but I'd say it might be a little confusing to somebody not familar with the board. Maybe you could expand on some of the memes mentioned, and explain - briefly - some of the blue links, eg "an example being the O RLY? owl which bla bla or "will regularly act with the intention of accumulating "lulz"; internet speak for bla bla. Ceoil sláinte 19:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea - I've done so on both the ones suggested and will take a look through for other cases where that might help. Giggy (talk) 00:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think using moot is ok - it was an anonymous pseudonym for a long while and is very well established. Ceoil sláinte 20:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The chances of Poole being his actual name are pretty low. I can't say that in the article because the closest the sources went was Lev Grossman saying it's possible. But it's almost certainly a combination of several /b/ memes, not his actual name. Giggy (talk) 00:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A, I see now that the likelyhood is "5%" ;. Put that in the lead though (BLP afterall). The article is basically (and correctly) about /b/, but you still need to cover the other rooms in a bit more detail. Maybe fill out "Other memes" more (so much to choose from!) and the article is very close otherwise. Ceoil sláinte 08:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done in the lead (and infobox) as suggested. As for the memes - bleh, them darn reliable sourcing rules! ;-) I'm combing through sources trying to find anything else that can be thrown in. Giggy (talk) 09:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He, them pesky annoying rules and criteria! Anyway, I'm basically a support (see above) here, given that if there are no other available sources then its as comprehensive as it can be. I'll watch how it goes anyhow. Ceoil sláinte 09:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, by the way, for your help with copyediting and the like. Giggy (talk) 00:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Image:Example 4chan random board thread.png - What is the significant contribution to our understanding (WP:NFCC#8)? Don't we know what a message board looks like? Did I miss discussion of a unique design/layout? I don't see any "critical commentary" pertaining to "53 GET"; why couldn't that be conveyed by prose (NFCC#1)? Why do we need to see 5 posts which include 4 copyrighted images? That doesn't seem to be minimal use; An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. (NFCC#3B). ЭLСОВВОLД talk 04:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There isn't "critical commentary pertaining to 53 GET", but there is half a paragraph here that talks about GETs and their significance in relation to the site's scaling. This image shows an example of a GET; how the system works, and, of course, what the board looks like in general (which helps in the understanding of other aspects of the article - eg. note that everyone has posted as "Anonymous" in this image, which is discussed in this section). Trimming this so it had less copyrighted images would defeat its purpose as the image wouldn't make sense and would be effectively useless.
    I dunno if this is enough; I suppose my take on NFCC is more lax than others' and that's fine. But does the above suffice? Giggy (talk) 06:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, Giggy, I didn't notice your follow-up ping on my talk page until now. This appears to have been removed from the article? Эlcobbola talk 17:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, removed. Giggy (talk) 01:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • concerns - 1) Short sections. "Formation" seems inadequate. 2) Why is "Anonymity" in "Layout"? 3) "The "random" board, /b/, follows the design of Futaba Channel's Nijiura board. " I don't know what this means and I don't see anything that would help explain it. 4) "Memes" I don't understand this section, and there is little information on some of the topics. 5) "Internet attacks" section seems to not focus much on 4chan except in passing and possibly a weight issue. I also don't see why "KTTV Fox 11 news report" is in the see also. 6) I think the wiki news template might be in the wrong area, what is the MoS for such? 7) Lower case use of "moot" at the beginning of sentences. What does the MoS say? 8) Use of a "See also" section. These should be integrated into the article and not lumped into a "See also". Ottava Rima (talk) 17:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that paras and even some sections could be merged. But the lower case 'moot' is not an issue. Thats his (her) name. Ceoil sláinte 17:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merged bits and pieces. Ceoil sláinte 18:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What does "Its brief is "random"; " mean? Ottava Rima (talk) 22:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded. Giggy (talk) 07:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also I note the prose at the top of the Memes section is pretty short, and doesn't actually mention any of the "memes" that are expanded on below. how do you turn this on 20:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I cant imagine how Anonymous would be represented by anything other than quotation marks. What do you want, exactly. Ceoil sláinte 20:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the section he's referred to without the quotation marks, so I don't know why the header would be any different. how do you turn this on 20:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removed them. Giggy (talk) 01:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think this would be great - Read over the article, it looks suitable for featuring, definitely. Sammyb123 (talk) 2:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
(Note use has 14 edits) Ceoil sláinte 00:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]
(Note user has 14 edits since account creation in October 2006, thus not exactly a SPA) KnightLago (talk) 02:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your comments and support. Giggy (talk) 00:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Source check

All others look good, links check out with link checker. Actually, I had more to question, but I saw you'd already addressed them in Ealdgyth's PR source check. Nousernamesleft (talk) 02:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Updated that URL; it's moved to http://www.lansinglowdown.com/index.php/blog/entertainment/2008/02/internet_group_ - for reliability; it's a published newspaper (and has been since 1909). Giggy (talk) 07:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's certainly published by The State News, but that's a student newspaper (from Michigan State University). Also, even if The State News was not a student newspaper, merely being published by a mainstream newspaper wouldn't make a difference if it's a blog, which it appears to be. I don't quite think this source qualifies under Wikipedia:RS#News_organizations. Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • (Addendum: That's not to say that a blog is inherently unreliable, but the author of that post doesn't seem to have any third-party-published works on the topic of the article. Besides, Michigan beats out Michigan State any day.) Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • OK, I've removed that one. Did some searching and couldn't find anything for that particular author either, and I understand your argument for it not getting reliability via its publisher. Giggy (talk) 07:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Great. Tentative support; waiting for the resolution of Otterathome's comments below. Nousernamesleft (talk) 01:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Surprisingly good article. Very well done! KnightLago (talk) 19:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks :-) - "surprising" eh? Giggy (talk) 00:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Meets and exceeds all featured article criteria. William Ortiz (talk) 02:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Particularly impressed on the amount of research put into the article (in term of sources). - Mailer Diablo 17:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. I can sense quality articles from having seen quite a few hatchet jobs in my time. Kindest regards, Ottre (che) 23:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notes; I'm not clear whether the image issue is resolved, not clear on sourcing question (and Ealdgyth) is traveling (looks like a blog), not clear on MoS issues (External links to WikiNews in the body of the article, see WP:LAYOUT and we don't use non-reliable sources within articles, and Portal in External links when Portals are not external, again, see WP:LAYOUT), and please clarify the main article templates that mix uppercase and not ... are rickrolling and lolcat, for example, never capitalized? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added a see also section and moved the portal stuff there. I kept the Wikinews template where it is as it's only relevant to that portion of the article (acts a la a {{see also}}). I'll ping NUL and Elcobbola for revisits. Rickroll and lolcat are common nouns, thus not capitalised. Giggy (talk) 23:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ack, you didn't need to add a See also, just move it to the first appendix. Not happy about WikiNews, but ... I'll watch for other to be resolved, but I know Ealdgyth is traveling. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I followed up on my source check above for continuity. Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • See above; RS issues resolved. Giggy (talk) 07:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please loose the 'see also'! And move the portal link to ext links... Ceoil sláinte 10:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The old FAC dilemma... that's basically asking me to revert what Sandy suggested. (Well, she didn't explicitly ask for a see also section but I'm not sure where else to throw the portal thingy... apart from external links!) WP:LAYOUT recommends a see also section and doesn't mention portal links anywhere else. Any other ideas on layout? Giggy (talk) 10:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<smile> I think I was misunderstood :-) Per WP:LAYOUT, Portals go in See also (because they are internal content) and Sister links go in External links (because they are external but more importantly because we don't place external jumps, more specificially external jumps to non-reliable sources within articles). Your dilemma is what to do when there is no Seealso; I didn't suggest creating an unnecessary See also (that also breaches WP:LAYOUT). This wording from WP:LAYOUT may help:

With the exception of Works, sections which contain material outside Wikipedia (including Further reading, and External links) should come after sections that contain Wikipedia material (including See also) to help keep the distinction clear. The sections containing notes and references often contain both kinds of material and, consequently, appear after the See also section (if any) and before the Further reading section (if any).

So, the intent is to get internal content first in the appendices, external content last. So, when there is no See also, you can just put the Portal at the top of the first appendix, and when there is no External links section, Wikinews at the top of the last appendix. Besides adding non-reliable info to the body of an article via the WikiNews link, adding WikiNews to an article raises the question of 1b, Comprehensiveness. There should be nothing major left out of this article, or there should be Wikilinks to related info on Wikipedia: nothing on Wikinews should be essential unless the article fails 1b, Comprehensive. That's an additional part of why WikiNews belongs in external links, besides that we don't link non-reliable external jumps within the text. Hope this helps, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There would be no dilema, Giggy, if you just accept that I am always right and just do what the hell I say without question or complaint. Please. Ceoil sláinte 20:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Sandy. Does this look right to you? Giggy (talk) 02:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've just discovered (yet another) case of conflicting MoS pages (WP:LAYOUT, WP:EL, WP:ACCESSIBILITY ... and newly discovered Wikipedia:Sister projects which is in disagreement with all three of them), so ... there you have it. Do whatever makes sense, we have yet another case of contradictory guidelines. I'll continue to argue there that elevating non-reliable content to a place within our article text violates our core policies, and that any external content belongs in External links, but that's me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Wasn't sure if the refs section counts as an appendix, especially now that the template is messing around with the 2 column reflist in Firefox. But whatever. I profess cluelessness on most things MOS. Giggy (talk) 02:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I'm on IE, and we don't see the two columns, so I wasn't aware they were messed with; so do whatever makes sense, it's not a big deal! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil; damn, you're right. Sorry, I forgot! Giggy (talk) 02:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this is on the verge of becoming a FA but some things I don't like.
    • The Anon_London_Feb10_TCR_Protesters.jpg picture gives the impression that all those in the picture browse 4chan when this isn't true, plus it is a little off-topic.
      • That's a good point. I've tried to clarify the caption to make it clear that not all Chanology protests are 4chan-based (but some are) [4]. Giggy (talk) 02:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No statistics are given about how popular the website is and how many posts particular boards have. For example you have a section all about /b/ but it doesn't say anywhere how many posts there are and approximately how many posts are a day. You can use a primary source for this. Without this the reader doesn't have any idea how popular the board is. The screenshot shows there is 100,000,000+ or one hundred million posts on the entire site, should mention it somewhere.
      • First up, I added some Alexa info for the main site. I dunno how to get any useful primary data out of such a fast moving site (any ideas? Sorry, I feel somewhat clueless), but there's a quote here from moot on the post rate which I've thrown in [5]. Giggy (talk) 02:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Like other website related articles you could add something like; As of September 2008 the website has amassed over 150 million posts in total. Use the homepage as a source.--Otterathome (talk) 14:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also think some more quotes from the media regarding the /b/ board would be helpful. I'm sure you can dig some more up.
    Agree. Ceoil sláinte 20:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added some more in. Giggy (talk) 02:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the introduction to the meme's section is too short. "many memes developed by 4chan" you make the site sound like a commercial factory and the meme's were intentional and designed.
      • I wrote a very general intro to Internet memes there, and added a bit more of a 4chan specific intro too. [6] Better? Giggy (talk) 02:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Example_4chan_random_board_thread.png we don't know the sources of all the pictures in this image, at least one is copyrighted, may need changing or tagging differently.
      • I removed this image as there have been a few issues about it raised. Giggy (talk) 02:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The lolcat caption is too short.
    Done. Ceoil sláinte 20:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see any other examples of any other boards, maybe mention a few? Primary sources will do.
      • Done [7]. Just threw in some examples from the home page. Giggy (talk) 02:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is moot's identity really in the right section? It wasn't exactly big media attention, just an interview. I think it goes into too much detail.
    I think its well placed, and directly relevant. It was a big deal on you tube, at least. Ceoil sláinte 20:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That it was! :-) Giggy (talk) 02:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Shouldn't moot be in double quotes in the infobox?
    No, its a pronoun. Ceoil sláinte 20:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Enough images already. Ceoil sláinte 20:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    NFCC issue too; you can easily describe "don't mess with football" using text. And I've done just that [9]. Giggy (talk) 02:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • On a side note there are some articles which should link to relevant sections of this article, for example Exif and Google Trends.--Otterathome (talk) 14:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
New comments
    • Someone added the Alexa link into the infobox some editors don't like this as the reliability of alexa is questionable, your better off removing it and saying 'According to Alexa it is listed as one of the top 1000 websites in the world.
      • If we're still using Alexa, there's no harm in keeping it in the infobox too.
    • Three links need fixing
    • I noticed the Internet portal link is now under references, this unnecassarily wraps/squashes them more. It would be better under external links or See also if there was one.
      • I believe you fixed this. Giggy (talk) 01:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why was the See also section removed? Seemed fine to me.
    • The external links section only has one link, surely you can add more. Googling 4chan came up with the following links encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/4chan 4chanarchive.org/ 4chanstatus.blogspot.com/ any of them appropriate?
      • Hmm, yeah, added one in. Giggy (talk) 01:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's thousands of 4chan related pictures at flickr I wouldn't agree to adding pictures of moot as it is slightly off-topic and may lead to BLP problems. Pictures related to meme's might be helpful.
      • Only these ones are free for us, and I don't particularly want to add another nonfree one. Contemplating a moot photo. Giggy (talk) 01:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another side note thing, this article will be quickly de-listed if it isn't kept up to date and crufty uncyclopedic crap isn't kept off it. So permanent semi-protection seems like a good option.
      • Yep, that's the current status. Giggy (talk) 01:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question, could you link me to some other featured article websites? Else some A class ones. If there are any. Comparing different qualities of the articles may be helpful.
    • Reference 51 says KVUE.com is the publisher this doesn't mean anything unless there's a wikilink to change to KVUE Television, Inc. Same with KXAN #48, can be wikilinked.
    • Reference 37 is too short 'Justia' means nothing by itself, should be something like Justia Federal District Court Filings instead.
    • The Registration field in the infobox could be expanded, 'no' by itself sounds uncyclopedic. Something else like 'None available' or 'Not available' would be better.
    • Might want to just replace {{wikinews|American city officials warned about dirty bomb threat}} with just {{wikinews}} in the external link section so it searches all 4chan related stuff.--Otterathome (talk) 14:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm. On the one hand, that gives a lot of unrelated results (eg. [10], the 4th hit). On the other hand, that template down there isn't doing much as it's not in the right place, IMO. Ended up stealing a template from Anonymous (group). Giggy (talk) 01:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could the following categories be added? Category:English-language websites, Category:Internet memes, Category:2channel.--Otterathome (talk) 15:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • All added. Thanks again for your thorough comments. Giggy (talk) 01:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: What is the origin of the name "4chan"? If known (and sourceable), that info should be added to the article. —Angr 19:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's taken from an anime website (I think) called 2chan. Well, that's in the recent Time article, so I think I can believe it. Nousernamesleft (talk) 01:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • (ec) I assume it's based on Futaba Channel (aka. 2chan), but I don't recall seeing it specifically stated as such anywhere. The article read "(aka. 2chan)" at some point, so readers could make the connection themselves, but it appears to have been removed. Giggy (talk) 02:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • After ec: Yeah, the Time article doesn't specifically state where the name comes from, unfortuneately. Giggy (talk) 02:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Break
  • The picture of moot needs to be removed, he has stated in interviews he prefers to be anonymous and keep internet and real life seperate.
  • Alexa rank is still in the infox, please remove now.
  • Change the alexa ranka to "according to Alexa 4chan is in the top 1000 websites", this stops editors having to update it every time it changes.
Or 'In September, 2008'... Ceoil sláinte
  • --Otterathome (talk) 18:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If he doesn't want his picture taken, he shouldn't appear in public. We're perfectly entitled to use it. —Angr 19:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • He is anonymous. The picture doesn't contain his real name or any other PII. It's also been around since before the Time interview, as have many other images of him. He may keep his identity secret (and we're not doing anything about that), but he hasn't kept his image equally hidden. Alexa stuff done and done. Giggy (talk) 20:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still don't think the Anonymous picture is appropriate, it is off-topic and is only connected to the site. (as mentioned before)
    • Very well, I have removed it. Giggy (talk) 01:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You need a {{clear}} above the references header.
  • The internet portal link seems to have gone, doesn't bother me if this is in the article or not though.
    • It's in the "Anonymous and the Internet" template at the bottom. Couldn't really fit it anywhere else without having signicant whitespace issues. Giggy (talk) 01:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The eon8 wikinews link is too trivial to be mentioned really.
  • Is there a wikinews article for the Palin incident? If so add it.
  • Careful not to go too off-topic with the Sarah Palin incident, things like "these screenshots were further distributed by blogs including Gawker.com" and the /b/ quote seems too trivial to mention.
    • I removed the Gawker thingy. I left the quote as it gives a good (IMO) insight into how things work around there (for lack of a better phrasing). Giggy (talk) 01:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • With the above and the Sara Palin incident covered properly, and assuming no other incidents surface I see no reason why it can't be an FA.--Otterathome (talk) 16:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks very much for your help in improving it. (Just for formality sake could you strike out the "oppose" above please, if this stuff here is all resolved OK.) Giggy (talk) 01:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I finally got round to reading the rest of the article. This is an alien world to an old boy like me, but I understood it (I think) and couldn't see any remaining serious infelicities. jimfbleak (talk) 07:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please check the dab link finder, there's a dab link for Secret Service (and reviewers should be checking for this, not me.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Scanned also. Tis Ok. Ceoil sláinte
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/4chan&oldid=1136099131"