Talk:List of Internet phenomena/Archives/2008/January

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

Candy Mountain?

I think the video "Charlie Goes to Candy Mountain" is worthy of being put here, its rather popular. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.235.190.138 (talk) 18:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)



yeah but what about website

a lots of the internet phenomenons comes from ytmnd, 4chan and so on, they could be quoted no ?

4chan ; longcat, ... ytmnd ; all the things with the nigg*, with darth vador and so on

for me it's some kind of phenomenon.


i think the eon8.com catastrophe should be on here.

that was nuts for a while ~~ 8/1


Also, this list is totally incomplete. Tubgirl was a meme before goatse was, and rotten.com and maddox.xmission should be on the websites list. Maddox is definitly a phenomenon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.208.160 (talk) 21:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

wait, how come the "i herd u liek mudkipz" and "flying spaghetti monster" isn't on the list?

How come the popular Mudkip internet meme isn't in the list. And isn't the flying spaghetti monster a internet meme as well, it's been popularized on the web community like Uncyclopedia? Unless, if I can find an internet article or a newspaper about the "I herd u liek mudkipz" meme, I should add that in there. I'm guessing our policy is a little too strict to extract sources from blogs and imagesites. Other than that, it is really funny (or annoying). --Dark paladin x (talk) 21:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources known to exist about the mudkip meme, as with most of the stuff from 4chan that becomes popular.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 09:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Adding alternate reality games (ARG) category?

Aren't ARGs an intresting internet phenomenon? They include the I Love Bees (also known as ilovebees or ILB for short) by the creaters of Halo? and the Lost Experience that promoted the television show Lost. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.65.150.220 (talk) 00:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

No Asian Prince?

Peter Pan is on here, why not Asian Prince? Of course, the lack of Brian Peppers is astonishing. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 17:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

itt van a gumimaci?

what about itt van a gumimaci? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.178.107.95 (talk) 20:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

-- No GiveBoobs.com? ---

What about GiveBoobs.com? - The girl successfully cyberbegged for breast implants, after millions of hits. There needs to be a reference to the cyberbegging phenomenon here, and I think GiveBoobs is the best example, in terms of tastelessness, lack of 'need' by the beggars, humor, and the money-generating power of the internet. Article about giveboobs appeared in Wired magazine, here: http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2003/06/59165.

Ladies217man (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC) jan 9, 2008

TUBGIRL!

I saw goatse on there but why not tubgirl if we include material down that path? http://www.tubgirl.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lipton800 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

2 Girls 1 Cup

I think this shock video should definitely be included, especially seeing how much of an impact the video reactions have made on youtube and it's world-wide reach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gibbon1993 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, it seems an obvious addition, so I've added it. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

but someone keeps taking it down, so lets have a heated debate here.--Mongreilf (talk) 12:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the rules governing editing wikipedia, but the current entry seems hyperbolic. Especially the first sentence; "A cursed cryptic video clip that cause it viewers experience symptoms such as mental confusion, vomiting and psychological trauma". Really? Obviously most people are gonna be disgusted by the video, but I somehow doubt this is an accurate description. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.136.30 (talk) 21:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

At this time, there are no reliable sources demonstrating the notability of this video. If someone is convinced that it is notable, why not attempt to create an article about it? If the article survives an AFD, then I'd accept the notability. OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It's actually the reaction to the video that is the phenom. However, the blog used as a citation is not reliable. the_undertow talk 00:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Good, we have some proper discussion. My contention is that
  • The phenomenon is evident and you are failing to AGF in recognising this. I didn't just invent this, you know.
  • I found the cite by using Google News after Jamie dissed the first cite. It seems to be a bona fide news source covering this sort of material and has an editorial staff.
  • I'm not sure how blog is defined exactly but, even if, for the sake of argument, NewTeeVee.com is considered a blog, such a source can be considered reliable. For example, RealClimate is regularly cited in Global Warming. We have other cites on this page to Slashdot and some entries have no cite at all. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
(1) An entry doesn't have to have a cite if it has a corresponding article (in that having an article indicates that its notability has been accepted). OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
(2) As mentioned in the WP:Reliable sources policy, blogs are usually not considered to be reliable sources unless they are notable and/or written by experts. RealClimate is notable. Though NewTeeVee may assert that it is notable, making such an assertion does not make it so.
(3) Google hits are not accepted measures of notability. OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
One can still AGF while reverting an edit. I did assume good faith, checked the source and do not see it is compatible with third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. CNN is good. NewTeeVee, not so much. But with that you should be trying to find consensus instead of walking the fine line of incivility in your edit summaries and creeping towards 3RR. the_undertow talk 00:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Looking into it further, NewTeeVee.com is a subsidiary of GigaOM which does describe itself as a blog but which seems to be quite notable and authoritative. Since they have reputation to maintain and a professional, editorial staff, I contend that their output is as reliable for our purposes as any other journalistic work (which is not saying much :)). Colonel Warden (talk) 00:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
curious how there are entries here with no sources cited, yet this one gets reverted. i do hope people aren't losing their impartiality to the nature of the content. more importantly the video's content, together with the reliable source guidelines, maybe skewing the notability test because many reliable sources would be unlikely to touch this, even if the world and his wife had watched it. --Mongreilf (talk) 12:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

oh and Ohnoitsjami "WP:Reliable sources policy". it's not a policy, it's a guideline. --Mongreilf (talk) 12:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and those entries have corresponding articles that are sourced. Like I said, if you create an entry for it and it survives AFD, I'll accept it.OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
your wikipedia article criterion for notability is a red herring. there are other forms of notability, in fact wikipedia and other wikis are specifically given as examples of non-reliable sources here (incidently was Wikipedia:reliable_source_examples, where you got the "blogs are not usually considered reliable sources", because that page is neither policy nor guidelines, but an essay). the problem in this case is an internet phenomenan seems to be occurring, but because of its nature it's unlikely to be reported in the places deemed reliable. obviously we can't do original research, but i wonder, as a side issue, when is something so self evidently true that stating it is no longer considered original research--Mongreilf 12:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Update. The Smoking Gun have reported on it here [1]. The Smoking Gun is part of Turner Entertainment, which is part of Time Warner. Also Radar (magazine) have reported on it here [2], they seem to be blaming former attorney general alberto gonzalez, though in a somewhat satirical way --Mongreilf 14:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed those sources too and updated the article again, citing Radar. Colonel Warden 23:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
This video is probably notable. If you can't find good enough sources, be patient and persistent and you will. Blogs are not normally reliable sources. The page that says that used to be a guideline but the material got moved and it's in flux right now. I don't think it's anyone's intent that by demoting part of it to essay status we would admit blogs generally as satisfying WP:verifiability concerns. That's especially true for this article. If we lowered the bar to inclusion of an Internet meme that it's been mentioned in a major blog we would have thousands of potential members of this list and, hence, an indiscriminate and useless article. The point is to cover several major, important phenomena, not to allow anything that's real. The list inclusion criterion has no real policy basis, it's just an editorial decision made by me and some earlier editors to the article to try to find a good dividing line between what's worth keeping and what isn't. If we're not tough enough we get a bunch of junk in the article, and it's quite likely to be gutted or deleted by the community when it comes to their attention. Incidentally, the reliability of a news source / blog doesn't depend on it being a notable institution in its own right. There are plenty of reliable articles published in non-notable sources (e.g. a neighborhood newspaper), and plenty of notable news sources (e.g. the Colbert Report, advocacy journalism, editorials) that are not reliable. It's really a question of editorial oversight and fact-checking. Blogs are usually self-published, and the article submissions are not reviewed for accuracy, relevance, importance, etc. They're great sources of information but when you actually drill down, even pieces by famous bloggers tend to cover trivia, they're speculative, and they are full of errors. A few months ago we were dealing with people who wanted to add Tay Zonday's Chocolate Rain video. It was obviously a big thing with millions of Youtube hits, but no reliable source had written about it yet. Sure enough, a couple weeks later a good article appeared, it got its citation, and the rest is history. Wikidemo 09:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I think someone should take this to DRV. 2girls1cup and its variants have been salted, and never went through the AfD process. If someone really wants to create an article, they should userfy it, and write and cite it well, then show that to the people at DRV, although I don't think they'll look down on it too well partially because of the vulgarity of the subject matter.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh wait. It does have an article now!-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Looks like early incarnations were speedied a couple of times. The current version seems to be quit well written and sourced. --Tony Sidaway 16:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Even the 'reaction videos' are very popular - I think that proves notability - are there any precedents ? I guess it's down to the rise of video as an online medium recently. --195.137.93.171 (talk) 14:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Broken link ?

Memes on the Internet Article regarding the spread of Internet memes. "offline for maintenance" --195.137.93.171 (talk) 14:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Lemon Party?

What about Lemon Party since there's a parody commercial about it and it's been referenced several times on NBC's "30 Rock". FreeNachos (talk) 02:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by FreeNachos (talk • contribs) 02:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Should "Cloverfield" even count?

This movie was hardly promoted just because of the internet, especially if it's mentioned in the same breath as Snakes on a Plane (which actually had lines WRITTEN because of internet message boards). Cloverfield keeping aspects of the movie secret is not a rare practice. MOST movies do this. I think Paramount Pictures contrived this idea of calling it an "internet phenomenon" because it's not.

FreeNachos (talk) 02:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Corey, Melbourne party boy, will need a mention soon

He's this week's Chris Crocker. Ichormosquito (talk) 07:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

No, he's not. JuJube (talk) 09:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
So it DID go through AfD. I had looked for a history of his Wikipedia article but couldn't find it. Thanks for the link. Ichormosquito (talk) 16:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

What defines an 'internet phenomena'?

Sorry, but I'd like to know the difference between the things are considered 'phenomena's? Why can't I add many articles from List of YouTube celebrities‎ or Category:Internet personalities? Because all those subjects have gained popularity by word of mouth over the internet. This list may be better off as a category, or nothing at all. Unless my concern is address, I will consider listing this article for deletion.--Seriousspender (talk) 19:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Yes, you can add more entries to this list if you have sources which demonstrate their notability as internet phenomena. The list already contains some YouTube celebrities. If they become too numerous then one list can reference the other. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
    • True that this title leaves a lot to be desired. Note that this page has already been nominated for deletion twice, with the discussions found here and here. I personally tend to think that if something on this list is notable to have its own WP page, then it is notable. Why make this list a page? It makes more sense to have a Category:Internet_Phenomena tag and let the individually-notable phenomena be tagged. Roscoestl (talk) 22:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Why not just link to List of YouTube celebrities instead of list them here?--Seriousspender (talk) 22:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I will be listing this for deletion in the future, watch my contributions.--Seriousspender (talk) 23:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)