Talk:List of Internet phenomena/Archives/2007/August

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

300

I think 300 with Leonidas is quickly becoming an Internet phenomena. I'm seeing a lot of pictures with him in it S:


Yes, the 300 Photochop is definitely quite a phenomena. However, it would pretty much take confirmation of another source, say CNN, to report it, in order to fit the criteria for inclusion. the_undertow talk 20:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

300 has been an internet phenomenon, just not good enough for Wikipedia. The ConundrumerTC 19:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

What is Chocolate Rain?

I have just experienced an incredibly annoying half-hour, trying to discover what is "Chocolate Rain".

Unfortunately, in the Wiki community, everyone seems more concerned with sourcing the term than in explaining it. Ditto with the moronic debate as to whether it deserves its own entry or not.

I would think such considerations are way secondary to the primary goal of explaining and/or defining a term. However, some people seem to think that if there's no source, then it should not exist—and to bad for the shmucks like me who'd just like a concise explanation of a term that is percolating in the zeitgeist.

So, to the community at large, I am asking—pretty-please—with sugar on top—can someone please just tell me what "Chocolate Rain" is? Thank you. --TallulahBelle 01:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Watch the video. I think you get the idea exactly what it's about from that. The text proposed for the main page is sitting here in the talk page and you can read that here just as well as you can read the main page. The argument is not moronic. Wikipedia has editorial standards for the same reason every other reference source in the world does, so that things here are as believable and usable as possible, and so we don't become a mess of fabrications, trivia, and nonsense. This page is a magnet for trouble. It gets vandalized several times a day by pranksters, and once or twice a day people decide to add their favorite video. At two a day it would have seven hundred items in a year, mostly useless, and so would every other Wikipedia article. Some of those are hoaxes or people trying to promote themselves, sometimes it is kids or Internet newbies who found something cool and think it needs to be in Wikipedia. Only occasionally is someone putting up a real example that people need to know about. Wikipedia's solution is a brilliant one, really. We keep everything neutral and fair. People don't get to add stuff or delete stuff just because they say so or they say it's important. We have an objective system. If you can find verification from a reliable source outside of Wikipedia, it fits. Otherwise it does not. That does mean that Wikipedia is not as good as Youtube, eBaumsworld, google, or the blogs at finding the very latest thing on the Internet. It does mean that if you find it here you can trust it. If you don't trust Wikipedia itself (and who should?) you can follow the source link to see what they have to say. If the only link here were to the Youtube video, you would have no idea whether it's a real thing or somebody's hoax. Wikidemo 01:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Incidentally, if you're wondering about the term, the song is obviously about race. "Chocolate" obviously means people of African descent, and "rain" is meant to invoke ubiquity, perseverance, excellence, and unstoppability. "Rain" as a metaphor for social change is common worldwide, and also in African-American music, where there is a bit of spirituality to it, rain being something nourishing that comes from God. I think there's a de la Soul song on a similar theme. I suspect that's why he worded it that way but I don't know. See, I'm just guessing. I could write that in the article and I would have nothing to back me up. You might repeat it and say that I said it on my blog, and that's still not proof. We're hoping that if you can point to an actual newspaper article saying that's what it means, we're piggybacking on a professional reporter's efforts to be objective and check facts. It still might be wrong, but with the reference citation at least you know where it comes from.Wikidemo 01:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
You just spent about five or six hundred words ranting and raving, and yet you failed to concisely define or describe what "Chocolate Rain" is.
Once again, to any and all, could someone simply and concisely explain what "Chocolate Rain" is? Thank you. --TallulahBelle 02:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I was being generous by way of explanation to a difficult user who seems not to get it. If you don't like that, how about you figure it out for yourself instead of being insulting? Your browser has a search bar, no? Wikidemo 02:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


Choclate rain is a video. Look it up on Ebaumsworld.
oh god, how can people reference ebaumsworld. ffs. anyway, "Chocolate Rain" is the title of video posted on youtube by user "TayZonday". it's pretty much just a video of him singing a song he wrote the lyrics and composed the music for. from what i can gather it's a meme because, like most other memes, it's silly/odd/quirky/whatever you want to call it. also, in the future just try using google. the link to his video is the first search result for "chocolate rain" 70.181.216.17 00:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

All "featured videos" were Chocolate Rain on YouTube once, guess that's why it's become a meme. --nlitement [talk] 07:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, we currently have a source for Chocolate Rain that I posted above. If someone could write a quick blurb about about it, it can be mentioned on this page. I suggest something like this:

"Chocolate Rain - A song by 25-year old Minneapolis resident Tay Zonday, posted on YouTube. His deep voice makes the song sound like it is sung by a much older man. This coupled with the catchy lyrics of the song and captions explaining that Zonday moves away from the mic to breathe in has led this video garnered over 3 million views after 3 months. It has also led to a large number of remixes and spin-offs."

Also, I found another source for Chocolate Rain, this one here: http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007350800,00.html
Work on the blurb, so we can finally get something about this on Wikipedia. --GhostStalker(Got a present for ya! | Mission Log) 14:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The Sun is a good source, no? AOL has it featured this week, so there are reliable 3rd party sources. Feel free to add! the_undertow talk 06:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

(undent) So yeah. I added it. the_undertow talk 07:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Removing youtube counts

Any agreement on removing youtube and other hit counts from all items on this list, whether or not the count is accurate or sourced? The problems we're having are:

  • Counts are frequently unsourced because people seem to believe all you have to do is say it. So to verify it you have to go to Youtube, sometimes perform a search, etc. Youtube counts are a magnet for unsourced info.
  • Counts are inaccurate and change rapidly. Every day the counts increase, but sometimes they decrease as videos are deleted. Most popular memes get more than one upload. So the counts rapidly become obsolete. Even if you could get an accurate up-to-date count it's just not worth it.
  • Irrelevant. The number of views is not determinative of the status on whether something is truly a meme, and says nothing about how pervasive it really is, or why, or how it is significant, etc. In a full article about the meme the viewership statistics might be useful, but not in a 1-2 sentence overview of the meme.
  • Inconsistent. A few videos have popularity posted, most don't. When the information is spotty it isn't really much help in letting people know what's going on.
  • Wikipedia is not a collection of random facts and statistics.
  • Misunderstood. People incorrectly believe that posting youtube statistics is a way to establish notability. Verifiable sources do that.

For all these reasons I think these numbers cause more problems than they solve. So I plan to delete them in a few days. Any thoughts, objections, agreement, etc? Wikidemo 02:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

YouTube and MySpace aren't memes

While Youtube and Myspace are popular websites, I don't feel they can be classified as an Internet Meme. If Popularity = Meme, then Wikipedia is also a meme, as well as google, and 100,000 other webpages. I submit that Youtube and Myspace should be removed as memes. Engunneer 23:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Although they aren't memes, they are Internet phenomena. There are 3 references for MySpace as being a net phenomenon.
Seraphim Whipp 00:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, they're not Internet Phenomena. Nor is 2channel . It's probably mislabeling. They are websites where Internet phenomena propagate but they are not themselves. Those sources don't show anything, they just have the word "phenomenon" in the title or article body. This article is a list of Internet memes in the notable sense described in the introduction section, not about phenomena in the common usage of that word. Every thing that exists is a phenomenon. That's not what we mean. Wikidemo 01:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
The references are reliable and discuss in detail how MySpace is an internet phenomenon. They don't necessarily have to repeat a specific mantra of "MySpace is an internet phenomena because...". The title of this article is not "List of Internet memes"; it is "List of Internet phenomena". The distinction should be made for a reason and the content should uphold the articles title. I don't know what discussion has come before or whether there was a debate to change it to it's current title...
Seraphim Whipp 12:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Phenomena and memes are interchangeable. See the talk history of the parent article, Internet meme. This list is about things on the Internet that are notable but also become popular in the way a meme does. The common usage of phenomenon meaning, an event or a big event, wouldn't make any sense. If this article were just about things that were big on the Internet it would encompass nearly everything, and thereby be completely non-notable.
On sources, see Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. Neologisms like "Internet meme" and "Internet phenomena" have to be supported with articles about the subject, not articles that happen to use the word. That would run into problems with WP:OR and WP:SYN. Of the sources for myspace, this only says that Myspace is a big thing. this one does the same and uses "phenomenon" in its common sense; there is no discussion of the meme-ness of myspace, probably because it has none. It's a platform/service, not a content fad. This one too is just a statement that Myspace is popular and a casual use of "phenomenon" in the common sense. Wikidemo 14:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
MySpace itself is a fad. Also, if phenomena and memes are interchangeable then MySpace would belong on this list. I have nothing more to say...If you wanna take it out, please do so as consensus leans that way. Thanks for your time :-).
Seraphim Whipp 16:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Dramatic Squirrel

YouTUBE VIDEO should be noted as meme

First. It's a gif. Second. It's not from youtube. It was another one of those 4chan memes on the internet.


It's not from 4chan, my friend runs a website where people submit original .gifs to be put in a gallery, 4chan tends to claim responsibility for memes that they didn't create.

--209.189.130.17 20:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

what does your friends website have to do with anything? dont post useless comments with nothing to back it up,  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.33.252 (talk) 07:18, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

itsjustsomerandomguy

Itjustsomerandomguy i feel has become an internet phenomenon. He has already quickly become one of the most subscribed people on Youtube with his Marvel/DC videos of which he has 17. He has also even been recognized by Marvel and been interviewed on their website. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.131.249.137 (talk • contribs) 86.131.249.137.

Sign your post and provide some reference links and it might just qualify.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 18:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

MISSING CONTENT!

ok. im not good with the whole wikipedia editing thing but there is SOOOO much missing from this article such as "you kicked my dog" end of ze world" "you are a pirate" and heaps more. it would be such a large project to list every one so i think it would be a really good idea if someone could include a list of websites that internet phenonemas have spawned from or gained popularity through (e.g. albinoblacksheep and newsgrounds )

220.233.208.111 11:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

--210.87.15.130 14:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC) Agree. And when this article is unlocked for editing, someone MUST print "Nice shemale pics" ref:(http://www.serboard.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7285&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0) If anything it shows how quickly meme's are spread across user forums and the Internet.

I'm also putting in a nomination for "The internet is a series of tubes!" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.87.15.130 (talk) 14:16, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

WikiScanner

Would WikiScanner count, it went online on the 14th and within two days, it was on the national news! Henceruns4554 19:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

No happy slip?

When I searched for happy slip, it redirected me to this page. I expected to find some information here, but there is none. Is it normal to be redirected somewhere for a search term but not find it on the destination page?

68.251.43.2 22:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

There was a blurb about Happy Slip here, at one time. However, the article was deleted. the_undertow talk 23:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Happyslip Enjoy! Ichormosquito 04:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I Nominate Charlie the Unicorn goes to Candy Mountain

I just couldn't find enough references to prove it, but Charlie the Unicorn goes to Candy Mountain is a huge sensation amongst kids and even young adults. When I want to "return the favor" for someone making me watch a different internet meme, i "thank" them by referring them to this video, and usually they say their kid walks in and goes "Oh yeah, Charlie the Unicorn". I've met several people that can quote most lines and there are even youtube videos of people re-enacting the video themselves line for line. Annoying video that gets stuck in your head is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5im0Ssyyus —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sadchild (talk • contribs) 17:18, August 23, 2007 (UTC).


Oh yeah! We forgot about Charlie!

We need to find some references. Astro 15:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this should be enough http://www.google.com/search?q=charlie+goes+to+candy+mountain&rls=com.microsoft:*&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1

)

Astro 15:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Badger Badger Badger

Badger Badger Badger seems like it should make this list.


I believe there should be a general category of websites such was eBaumsworld, Albino Black Sheep, ytmnd, Weeblstuff, jibjab, Homestarrunner, newgrounds, etc

I added it before reading the talk page, and seeing your comment. I too think it should be included but I couldn't find a reference stating its relevance Jlsilva 13:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Chocolate Rain notability

It has been discussed before, about Chocolate Rain's notability. Several people already suggested including it in this article, but instead it was deleted due to not being notable enough. Now, it's literally dominating Youtube. Today is Tay Zonday Day[1], and Chocolate Rain is all over the frontpage of Youtube. Is that noticeable enough? The ConundrumerTC 01:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It needs to fit criteria for inclusion. Check out this link and poke around the net to see if the subject fits the criteria. C ya. the_undertow talk 01:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I just did a quick search...the singer, Tay Zonday, has 143,000+ google web hits and zero google news hits. The song Chocolate Rain has 279,000 web hits and one news hit that is so brief it's probably doesn't help establish notability. If you have your heart set on this one, you can probably find a good source in there somewhere. Hint: no blogs please, and nothing that is merely an announcement that it exists plus a leak. We need something that says it's a runaway Internet hit, or a meme, or a phenomenon, or that everyone's listening to it like crazy for some unfathomable reason....or just wait a week. If it's really that big someone will eventually put it in a newspaper. The guy's got some kind of weird talent. Wikidemo 01:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, never mind. It seems Youtube really was hacked, since there's no trace of Tay Zonday Day in their blog, even though the original Chocolate Rain is still featured. I guess it can wait. The ConundrumerTC 12:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

yeah the video is a meme at this stage, chocolate rain has received ober 1 million views. I added it. you guys clean it up or whatever. It just has to be there.

Done. Back in the dead pool -- it's not my place to clean up everything for everyone. If and when sourced, it can go in the article. Incidentally, someone added it to the wrong article today too. Wikidemo 01:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

That was me. I put it under Internet meme because thats where it redirects. Its ridiculous that 'chocolate rain' is not covered anywhere in wikipedia.

I don't understand why you consider a meme with 143,000 google hits 'not notable' just because a newspaper hasn't covered it. Most net memes, even the most popular, never will.

In most cases its not even realistic to expect a memeto be backed by 'reputable sources'? Its an internet phenomenon in the first place. It owes its entire existence to blogs, youtube and myspace.

Insisting a youtube/myspace phenomenon be documented somewhere other than runaway popularity on youtube/myspace is overly stringent standard for internet memes. They're defined by the fact they're prevalent on the internet; popularity on some of the internet's most popular sites (youtube, myspace, etc) are the gold standard to evaluate them by, not the online edition of a print newspaper. Many such memes will generate interest among millions of people without getting mentioned in the mainstream media. Jeffjrstewart

I understand the point. The argument you are making is one that others make in favor of deleting this article entirely, and downplaying attempts by Wikipedia to cover current events, pop culture phenomena, etc. Reliability and sourcing is a fundamental issue with Wikipedia and part of its mission. This is not the place for Wikipedia:original research, and conducting surveys, studies, analysis, observation, etc., on the state of the Internet is original research. If someone wants to know what's hot on Youtube, they can go to Youtube and check it out directly. If you want to see what's going on in the blogosphere you can go to the blogosphere. This is the place for something a little more firm, long-lasting, and in depth. Even something as obvious and important as, say, a dam burst or a military victory doesn't get written about here first. It has to be published, and then you can cite the published source. Likewise, if there is a heat wave you don't go to the weather website and report their statistics here. You have to wait until someone writes about it somewhere.
The most I'll grant you is that Wikipedia has a bias against blogs. Blogs are still on the ascendancy as far as people taking them seriously, and we still have trouble deciding which blogs are believable and reliable, and which are not. Unlike papers and magazines, which have a stricter editorial process, anyone can say anything in a blog. Those rules, I think, are still being written. Why should person X be completely ignored for now, then if he or she gets a job with the local paper the next day and thereby moves their comments to the paper's blog, suddenly they become citeable? But right now the problem is people taking things too seriously, not that they don't take them seriously enough. This page and the companion over at internet meme are getting spammed and vandalized up to several times a day, not to mention all the unsourced and poorly written content that keeps creeping in.
Anyway, I don't think you'll get too far here with an argument that any video with enough google hits or Yahoo views belongs in the article. That would create a potentially huge list, hundreds of items long. A more fruitful thing to do would be to identify some specific respected blogs or sources where people are writing about Internet phenomena. There must be some columns, experts, etc., devoted to that. If you can make a case for them, that could be the beginning of a formula or rule by which the more important memes get added and the trivial ones do not. Wikidemo 03:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll concede the simplest way for me to deal with this is just to play by the rules, and make a case that it's noteworthy with links. But while we're on the topic, I still think the noteworthy standard on wikipedia is far too high for this type of material.

You mention that one can just go straight to youtube to learn about this type of thing, and that people do not go to wikipedia for every last little thing- but as a matter of fact, I often do. I saw chocolate rain on youtube, couldn't make heads or tails of it, and headed straight to wikipedia for an explanation. I wasn't expecting a well-written, impeccably sourced entry, just a brief word or stump, and maybe a couple links to point me in the right direction. But even that wasn't there, and I thought that for the first time in a long time the site had let me down.

It turned out that as a whole, it hadn't. Many people had attempted to make entries, only to have them deleted by a core group that hate such fads and want to keep this site 'respectable'. In fact, the term chocolate rain has now been 'salted', even banning any further attempts at entries! To me thats just crazy.

The main argument seems to be here that if this can go on, then hundreds of other only marginally noteworthy things could go on as well. To this I say, why not? Doubtless, many such articles would likely be poorly sourced and poorly written...but I hardly see how thats really so bad when the alternative is simply to have nothing at all. I fully appreciate and respect the need to have stringent guidelines for wikipedia on serious topics such as biographies of historical figures, scientific phenomena, etc. But I hardly see why entries about memes, big or small, need to meet such high standards. A quick stub and a link or two is fine.

Every month hundreds of wikipedia entries get deleted due to 'noteworthy' guidelines which basically state, 'well, we can't just put EVERYTHING on wikipedia, can we?" But as a matter of fact you can. And there isn't really any logical reason (cost of labor, space, etc) that they can't be.

There seem to be a lot of passionate wikipedians that want the site to be taken seriously as a credible encyclopedia, and see entries on internet fads as harming that credibility. But this medium makes those entries possible, and a lot of people want them. I know I do. As good as the standards are for 'noteworthy' material, when it comes to quick, useful info on minor topics, trying to ape encyclopedia Brittanica in totality is holding the sites full potential back.

Check out this article about noteworthy standards- http://www.slate.com/id/2160222/pagenum/1 Jeffjrstewart


Yeah but chocolate rain made you cross the street the other day.

The logical way to eat soup is with a spoon.

Chocolate Rain should be added to the list, if someone had a problem with it having its own article. This was the case because it was deleted.

How's this for a source?: http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,22170787-5012327,00.html
If that source is adequate, I guess we can add Chocolate Rain to this list, and ask for the current redirect to be moved from Internet Meme to here. --GhostStalker(Got a present for ya! | Mission Log) 22:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe Zonday is a college student living in the Twin Cities area of Minnesota. Not sure what ethnic origin his surname is (if that's indeed his real name). Badagnani 22:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Yep, that's a source. Zonday's time has arrived. For anyone who adds it, please be sure to cite anything using the "ref" and "cite news" templates, like some of the other listings. Wikidemo 23:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Tay Zonday has been interviewed on G4's Attack of the Show and he was chosen for who's having the best week ever on VH1's Best Week Ever. A Google search for "Tay Zonday" gets 780,000 results and "Chocolate Rain" gets 1,260,000. He's freakin notable already! Herorev 01:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Attack of the Show is probably not a reliable source. Google definitely is not. That many hits suggests he probably is notable and that a good source is probably available, but it is not a source. You need to understand the difference between being notable, and going through the process to establish notability. If you don't mind spending the time learning, it's a lot more rewarding to build the encyclopedia based on real references that will stand up. People have found the sources at this point and the article is ready to go. Now someone actually has to do it the right way and not just talk about it. Wikidemo 06:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)