Talk:Internet meme

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

biased 4chan nonense Video remixes are not new, or bound to a trend, it has been arround forever —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.104.90.201 (talk) 15:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Internet Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the Internet culture. For more information, visit the project page.
??? This article has not yet received a quality rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] OMG Ponies

Who thinks it would be useful to add detail about the meme "OMG!!! Ponies!!1!"? Is that meme large enough to feature? Has it spread outside of the internets enough to classify as a phenomenon?

-- Rossj81 05:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


Okay, let's get this clear. This is NOT the list of internet phenomena. Take whatever little joke that the kids are loving nowadays over to THAT article.

-- User:Okrainets

[edit] An hero

An hero should be featured, it is a very important meme. If you do not feature an hero meme on this page I will become an hero. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.68.51.103 (talk) 17:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

unheroic anon is unheroic, gbt 4chan :-) 204.52.215.13 23:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

what the hell is an hero ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.62.223.87 (talk) 19:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Short Version : Kid commits suicide, someone posts grammatically incorrect message to kid's Myspace page calling him "an hero", 4chan runs with it. "Be an hero!" turns into another way of saying "Kill Yourself!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.135.89.138 (talk) 17:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It's dumb and unimportant, and death threats (including your own) are a blockable offense. JuJube (talk) 18:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC) Yes, duckrolls, all your base, and leekspin are all unimportant as well. I guess they aren't memes either.

[edit] Millhouse vs. Jack Spicer

On 3 January 2007 00:52, Heyjokerman changed Millhouse is not a meme to JACK SPICER IS NOT A MEME. While there is some evidence of the Jack Spicer variant, the Millhouse version is far more prevalent and appears to have been the version started on 4chan. Judgement by Google.

I suggest the change be reverted to Millhouse. -- Rossj81 12:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Google searches are not reliable sources.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Millhouse is not a meme. However, Millhouse is not a meme is a meme. Millhouse is not a meme is a meme is a meme as well. Millhouse is not a meme is a meme is a meme as well is, thankfully, NOT a meme. 99.164.109.224 (talk) 07:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Needs Rewrite

While I agree that the subject matter is culturally significant enough to warrant a Wikipedia article, it could stand to be rewritten. As it stands, the article comes off as very amateurish and not up to Wikipedia's standards. I'm going to tag it for now, and if no one gets around to rewriting it I'll start work on it soon. 'Shoe' McCartt 10:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "become a meme"?!?!

this parte "If they are repeatedly posted and recycled by the internet community until they become a sort of inside joke, they become a meme." is nonsense, every idea that can be copied is already a meme.

Osias 17:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this seriously needs a rewrite and then closed,too many people messing around with the article. (Wiggly 03:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC))

    • I disagree, as this has happened. I know ED can't be a reliable source, but a lot of memes started because people start spamming popular sites like 4chan. It goes beyond being copied, to being copied and put EVERYWHERE. IE. Something that's going to end up in forum signatures, image boards, avatars, and forum posts, ect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.28.221 (talk) 19:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help

The template inappropriate tone template was in the wrong spot, so i moved it, but now it dosen't seem to be working properly. I'm fairly new, so I'm unsure as to what I'm doing wrong. Is this is an innapropiate place to ask this question?

[edit] Image removed?

How does an example of an internet meme not contribute to the article? Why has it been removed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SeriousCat (talk • contribs) 01:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

A picture of a cat hardly qualifies as a meme. A screaming mouth open on a baby, maybe. A child, saying little memes as it goes to sleep, maybe. Catch the picture?
No, I don't. This meme was originally captioned "I are serious cat, this is serious thread." And after it's usage incresed, other versions showed up like the one I added to the article.

This text appears in the article:

Evolution of Internet memes

Internet memes usually start when someone (usually a forum member), posts a phrase, a picture (usually edited on photoshop to make it more humorous), a flash animation, a song, or a video. They are almost always jokes, the subject of which can be virtually anything. Many common subjects include current events (Michael Richards' racist rant), a funny picture, a stupid or grammatically incorrect phrase (usually taken from a forum), a movie, TV show, or video game, or websites. If those who view the joke find it funny, they will often repost it elsewhere and/or edit the joke in order to add their own twist before reposting it. A good example of recycling a joke is the "All Your Base Are Belong to Us" video on Newgrounds.com, which features a massive amount of pictures with the words "All your base are belong to us" placed in the picture using Photoshop. When the jokes are reposted enough so that the majority of the websites users are aware of it, it becomes a meme. SeriousCat 02:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

(Minor reformating so the whole page is not taken up by a sig). Disagree. Putting a picture of a cat (probably yours) hardly qualifies as a meme. Ronbo76 02:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
It IS NOT my cat, it is a WELL KNOWN internet meme. The reason my username is the same as the picture is my real name was taken, and one of the reasons I joined was to upload this picture and improve this article. I'm new to having a userspace and interacting with other wikipedians, but I think it's possible you are assuming bad faith. SeriousCat 02:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
No, I did not assume bad faith. If I had thought bad faith, I would have issued you a standard template message indicating my concern. I stand by all my comments and edit summary comments
I don't know who's cat this is, and I don't have a cat. I have personally seen this meme on several different message boards.


I also just got these by typing "Serious Cat" into a search engine..

http://forums.ytmnsfw.com/showthread.html?t=31487

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=146496227


here's one a friend found for me..

http://www.joystiq.com/2007/01/08/nothing-new-on-xbla-this-week-but-there-is-ms-pac-man/ SeriousCat 03:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You still do not have consensus on the picture and should be adding back until you do. Ronbo76 22:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
The other persons' only reson for removing it was that it was "probably my cat". It is NOT my cat, and I do no see how this is a valid reason to remove it. There is no consensus on removing the image either. This is a well known internet meme, and removing it reduces the amount of knowlage contained in this article. I believe I have presented evidence that this meme is in use, and it's removal as an example goes against the principles and policy of Wikipedia. - SeriousCat 23:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
It was and am I who still is opposed. I did not say it was your cat; that was your inferral. Until consensus is reached, one revert rule general Wikipedia karma is to not re-do (or in essence, revert) back an edit. This causes edit wars which are not helpful. Just because the picture exists on other self-posted sites does not make it meme. A meme is something that becomes lasting or legendary also like Kilroy was here or signs posted stating "George Washington slept here". The cat does not rise to that level.
You DID say it was "probably" my cat. It's a matter of record. ^ I quote: "a picture of a cat (probably yours) hardly qualifies as a meme". Just because you aren't plugged in enough to know about a meme, dosen't mean it isn't one. I have provided ample evidence. Click the third link I posted. This is obviously a meme that is in use. I merely wanted to put the image as an example of a meme, and improve the article, and you have provided NO valid arguments as to why it shouldn't be there. I give up. This isn't an encylcopedia, it's a snobby social club. I will no longer attempt to edit this article. - SeriousCat 00:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Wow. Well, someone put the image back, and I would like to point out that it wasn't me. - SeriousCat 01:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect

I redirected this page to List of Internet phenomena, as it was completely duplicative of that more comprehensive article. Krimpet 18:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


They are not the same thing. A meme does not become a phenomenon until it has been seen in the real world

According to virtually every source I can find, as well as the definition at List of Internet phenomena, they are exact synonyms. Krimpet 14:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Well now there seem to be two articles with pretty much the same name but different case linking to different places: Internet Phenomenon and Internet phenomenon.(Jamesdlow (talk) 07:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC))

I just changed that so they both link here. I suppose if it were phenomena instead of phenomenon it could go there. Anyway, both articles link to each other. Also, the division between the two articles is now that one is a list and the other is the main article; we're not really trying to distinguish between the terms "meme" (which is used in an inexact sense, not the scientific definition) and "phenomenon" (used to mean "popular sensation" or something like that). Wikidemo (talk) 08:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rewriting article

I am in process of rewriting the article as proposed. It had been deleted entirely after a complete rewrite was proposed, and after an editor noted that the article was completely duplicative of list of Internet phenomena. I agree that "Internet phenomena" and "Internet memes" are nearly identical terms (I say "nearly" because not all suddenly popular things on the Internet are memes in the strict sense, but for all intents and purposes, they are). However, the other article is a list with very little descriptive information. To satisfy the encyclopedic mission of Wikipeda the primary article should discuss the thing itself, and not merely be a list of examples. I've chosen to create that article from scratch rather than massively edit the existing list, which is semi-protected as it is and which would end up stirring up controversy. Best to do what we have elsewhere, which is a main article and a subsidiary article that is a list. I chose "Internet meme" as opposed to "Internet phenomenon" for the article name because that is a slightly more common usage as per google, and most of the sources of any quality I have found call it a meme rather than a phenomenon. Either way one should redirect to the other.

To preempt any speedy deletion or reversion attempt I'm attaching a hangon tag for now. Sorry to save this before its time but I'm building up the internal redirects and links, which is hard to do without having an article in place. I'm working on filling it out and adding some references to bring it up to a solid stub article. Memes are such a big thing on the Internet it would be nice if people could help improve it at least to a "Start" or B-class article. Wikidemo 22:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you use a personal sandbox in the future, the hangon tags are not meant to be used in this manner. SGGH speak! 22:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
All done now! Thanks for the suggestion. Wikidemo 05:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Huge amount of misinformation on this page

-Memes are memes regardless of popularity or success.

-Memes are memes regardless of amusement or entertainment.

-Digital data, eg videos, websites, images, etc, are not memes. They do not pass from one mind to another; they generally stay on one server. EG The idea of sharing the video is a meme, quoting lines from it are memes, but the video it's self is not a meme. (You could possibly call some of them a ‘memotype’, however even this doesn’t always work as you can’t store a whole video or whole website in your mind.)

Most of later part of the page is either miscellaneous or just irrelevant info. I would correct this page but it seems to be entirely based of these misconceptions. I think it would be better just to delete this page as it can be summed up in one line: "Memes can spread via the internet." If they are particularly notable memes then the meme page can mention them. Xep 06:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with any proposal to delete. It claims its own notability, it is notable, it is widely discussed, and it is cited so please don't. I wrote most of the article and I stand by it. Rock solid, if rather tentative. It is cited and supported by what major publications say about Internet memes. As I say, the word is used in three senses: (1) the thing that is passed from person to person, in this case a digital file; (2) the subejct of the content, i.e. the joke itself (which is what you are probably thinking of as a meme), and (3) the phenomenon as a whole -- i.e. the fact that 1/2 million people just heard the joke is an incidence of a meme. The word "virus" is also used in the same 3 senses: the dna arrangement, the individual instance of it, and the outbreak. Describing the various classes of memes is certainly useful and correct -- particularly PR and advertising, which self-consciously claims itself to be generating Internet memes and gets covered as such by the press. This article was separated out from the list of Internet Phenomena for a reason discussed in the talk page. Wikipedia is mostly an encyclopedia of articles about things, not a list of things. Perhaps you are objecting to the application of the term "meme" to Internet phenomena. That's not for us Wikipedians to decide, because the term is so used. It's a fair criticism that what is called (and what I wrote about as) an Internet meme is not a true meme, just as there is criticism (discussed in the meme article) that memes themselves are an empty concept. If so, why not add a section like "criticism of terminology", if you can find some good citations. If not, you are doing what some semi-scientists do when they claim that white, or black, is not really a color. Fine. But please don't delete the article on white or black from Wikipedia in response. Wikidemo 06:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
You only need to read any book that gives the definition of 'meme' to see that it is not compatible with the definition (the one given here at least) of 'internet meme'. I agree that it's become popular to call fads/popular things 'memes', but that's just a common misunderstanding. If 'internet meme' has become popular enough that it is now its own phrase with a different meaning, then you need make it clear that they are not memes in the traditional sense. This is not POV, it is a fact that we have to two different definitions, ie 'internet meme' (Popular online fads) and 'memes spread via internet' (Normal memes in the true sense of the word). Xep 07:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Very interesting point, and perhaps a distinction worth being made in this article. An argument that some or all of what are commonly referred to as "Internet memes" are not really memes is worth making - to avoid opinion, POV, and original research-like issues you would have to point to a secondary source that says so rather than simply making a case here based on primary sources. Then the question becomes whether real memes on the net are a distinct sub-class of memes that is worth writing about. If so they deserve their own article, or we could divide the Internet memes article between true Internet memes, and things that are known as Internet memes that are not real memes. It would be like writing an article about, say, Parmesan cheese. You could divide that article between the true cheese from Parma that meets all the criteria, versus a style of cheesemaking the world over that also carries that name. The other possibility is that there isn't really anything special about memes when they happen to be on the net. One analogy might be warriors. There is a common term called "road warriors" that covers a distinct class of people. They are not really warriors. However, there is no real sub-class of true warriors who happen to be on the road and as such "road warriors" in the sense of trained career fighters who happen to be in a passenger vehicle at the time is not a point worth making. I hope that's reasonably clear. I'm fine with and encourage you to add all the wisdom you want to this article. That's what Wikipedia is for -- make it better! Just, please, don't eviscerate the article about the pop culture phenomenon that's called an "Internet meme." It was a step in the right direction to separate the article describing the phenomenon from the other article that serves as a list of various people's favorite examples. Thx. Wikidemo 09:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
These last two posts get to the heart of what I personally see to be the primary issue on this page, which is that there is a misunderstanding between what a "meme" is, meaning a basic unit of cultural information that Richard Dawkins proposed to exist in his book The Selfish Gene (and to the best of my knowledge his argument has not achieved the degree of success in academia that say evolution or even string theory has), and what an "internet meme" is, that is a fad that is transmitted over or otherwise engendered by the internet and the existence of which is doubted by nobody who has ever encountered one. Just ask Chuck Norris. I'm going to edit the introduction to make the faddish nature of an internet meme more apparent and also mention that the name is inspired by but has little in actuality to do with the idea of a meme.--BlackAndy 02:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Over 9000

Some anon tried to request an article on "over 9000" (see e.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBtpyeLxVkI or http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Over_9000) but failed. Only reference on Wikipedia is in Cosplay. I don't care what you leute do with it, I just drop it here on the talk page and you can discuss amongst yourselves. Shinobu 06:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not. This is a meme limited to the chans. It is virtually unknown otherwise.

True, but it's also used on Encyclopedia Dramatica —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.129.239.143 (talk) 05:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chocolate rain

I just heard this term, and plugging it in Wikipedia, I get this article, Internet meme. Anyone know what Chocolate rain is? And if it's noteworthy enough to redirect, shouldn't there be some explanation somewhere here of what it is? Thanks. --TallulahBelle 00:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Same here, and I'm alost positive that "Chocolate Rain" or Tay Zonday at least had a page on here at one time that must've been deleted. I also think that if those pages were scrapped, there should at least be a mention of those memes on the page to which the terms redirect. This is probably the wrong page to redirect to anyway, considering that there's an entire category of internet memes on Wikipedia that would work better. --67.65.58.180 11:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It was deleted. I remember from the talk page of that article that there was a consensus growing to keep it, even thought it was a a candidate for deletion. If some angry person didn't like it having an article that's fine, but it should at least be listed on the list of interent phenomena. Tay Zonday's been on G4, Opie & Anthony, and others, not even because of his other videos (turbotax, his rickroll, etc) which are popular as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwTZ2xpQwpA

Please review Wikipedia:Verifiability for sourcing requirements. Youtube is not a reliable source. If it deserves its own article, it deserves its own article. The place where these things have been linked isn't in this article, it's in list of Internet phenomena. There's a discussion on the talk page. Somebody finally found a newspaper article about it so it seems likely to reappear. Wikidemo 23:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
That's not the kind of source they were talking about, sheesh. Howdoesthiswo 19:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Zomgwtfpwn

This person made some pretty questionable edits to the page. Please be on the lookout. Sanjayhari 07:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] oh noes! itz a m3m3!

OMGWTFBBQPWNZOMGWTF... I herd you liek mudkipz... DESU DESU... meroooow neko neko... (insert adjective) (insert noun) is (insert same adjective you used before)... pool's closed... WEEABOO WEEABOO...1000 get... V&...b&... in b4 (insert something)...

some examples of "chan" memes I've seen as of late.

204.52.215.13 23:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

"Blog Meme" is not the same as the "Meme"

While utility of memetics is still debated in academic circles, the word "meme" evolved a very distinct meaning on blogs. Moreover, most of the examples given on this page do not represent "blog memes" - they are NOT just pages or pieces of information that spread a lot across the internet, but a very specific form of it, usually in a form of a series of questions and a number of subsequent bloggers who are "tagged" to answer those same questions on their own blogs, tagging new people etc. Thus, it is semi-organic and semi-designed - the first person decides which part of the blogosphere to target first and the subsequent players then spread it to other blogospheric nodes. Sometimes a piece of text or a piece of code is used for tracking the spread of the meme. Here are some examples of recent memes (just those I did over the last couple of years, but you can find many more if you start looking around): http://scienceblogs.com/clock/2006/11/blog_memes.php

http://scienceblogs.com/clock/2006/12/year_in_review_meme.php

http://scienceblogs.com/clock/2006/12/hanukah_meme.php

http://scienceblogs.com/clock/2007/02/i_am_a_sucker_for.php

http://scienceblogs.com/clock/2007/02/beauty_not_just_featherdeep.php

http://scienceblogs.com/clock/2007/04/why_do_you_blog_meme.php

http://scienceblogs.com/clock/2007/04/why_do_you_blog_meme.php

http://scienceblogs.com/clock/2007/08/eight_random_facts_meme_take_2.php

http://scienceblogs.com/clock/2007/09/cool_animal_meme.php

http://scienceblogs.com/clock/2007/10/the_pharyngula_mutating_genre.php

http://scienceblogs.com/clock/2007/10/i_rank_number_one_on_google_me.php

http://scienceblogs.com/clock/2007/10/happy_hallomeme.php

http://scienceblogs.com/clock/2007/11/meme_of_four_again.php

[edit] Psychological explanation?

I came to this article (indeed, I typed "Internet meme" into the search and clicked "Go") to see if anybody's made some sort of explanation for why certain phrases, pictures, and audio clips spread like crazy through the internet, though there's nothing of the sort here. I can understand why this article is relatively short; in reading the discussion, it was fairly recently resurrected.

Has there been any case where somebody tried to figure out WHY internet memes are popular? It stands out to me in that it's a major exception to the commonly-understood idea that jokes become less funny when told multiple times. Rather, in this case, their appeal seems to COME from how they are repeated. Personally, this kind of repetition is ad nauseam, but those who are into internet memes, from my experiences, not only never grow tired of seeing the likes of Chuck Norris or cat photographs or whatnot, actually finding it FUNNIER the more they see it, but they tend to personally attack those who openly admit they're tired of these things.

Where does the appeal of an internet meme come from? Is it a desire to spread knowledge to other people, a wide-scale and distilled version of telling a joke? Does it derive from a sense of being accepted, in that the people who display memes are showing to other people that they, too, are aware of the subject of the meme? Is the repeated display of a meme a projection of the poster's immediate thoughts in that something that stands out will freuqnelty reappear in one's head?

By the way, I've seen the "Over 9000" thing put up pretty much everywhere. No messgae board I've been to recently has managed to completely evade it, and I see it all over the likes of YouTube. I'm not too clear on the distinction between a chan meme and a regular internet meme, as the lion's share of them that originate from 4chan seem to have spilled all over the Web. Ron Stoppable (talk) 05:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, all of these questions have been answered. Read the larger theory of memes.

[edit] The entire internet?

A website like 4chan hardly classifies as the entire internet. 70.89.165.91 (talk) 22:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History?

First blog meme? Evolution of the concept? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.142.60 (talk) 06:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, we're a work in progress. You're welcome to research this and add any reliably sourced results to the article. Wikidemo (talk) 18:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)