Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:47, 22 November 2014

Template:Gamergate sanctions

Prior deletions

• 09:22, 27 October 2014 RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted page 8chan (A7: Article about a website, blog, web forum, webcomic, podcast, browser game, or similar web content, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)
• 06:26, 4 October 2014 Jimfbleak (talk | contribs) deleted page 8chan (A7: Article about a website, blog, web forum, webcomic, podcast, browser game, or similar web content, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)
• 09:22, 27 October 2014 RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted page Talk:8chan (G8: Talk page of a deleted page)
• 06:26, 4 October 2014 Jimfbleak (talk | contribs) deleted page Talk:8chan (G8: Talk page of a deleted page)

Making a note of these, I am re-creating this page not to talk about the website/forum but rather as a disambiguation page, as this is the name of a character and anime series. Ranze (talk) 21:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

8chan the website is the primary name of the website 8chan.co, and as a result I am going to expand the article in this direction. If the 'anime' or the 'character' is really notable, then I implore you that you create an article for their page. If not, then I've no doubt that 8chan as the website is the primary usage and has its establishment in reliable sources, whereas the anime does not. Tutelary (talk) 18:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

But is 8chan the website a notable website deserving of coverage, or should it just be mentioned within the context of the Gamergate controversy? If the latter, then a disambiguation page is serving the purpose just fine. —C.Fred (talk) 18:46, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

C.fred, if you can't see the multitude of reliable sources for 8chan, then I can't help you. Additionally, there is no equivalence for WP:BLP1E except for websites. It's notable in its own regard. Tutelary (talk) 18:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

@C.fred:, before I draft up the initial page, do you have any hard feelings about if I just use this page for the website? I can't find much about the anime. Or do you really want me to create 8chan (website) because one anime just happened to match its name? Tutelary (talk) 20:35, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

@C.Fred: (Sorry have to ping again, doesn't work if you just edit it in.) Tutelary (talk) 20:36, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

@Tutelary: No objections if you create Draft:8chan; you'll need to prove notability before it gets moved to main article space, though. —C.Fred (talk) 20:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

That wasn't the question. I guess you'll just have to see what I do, then. Tutelary (talk) 20:42, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

@Tutelary: - the source in question (The Daily Dot) does not take into account the active anti-pedophilic side of 8chan, the fact that Brennan and board volunteers only moderates for actual illegal activity as described in US law (specifically Californian law), or the actual kind of discussions present on the site concerning pedophilia. What I am doing is not white-washing, but ensuring accurate information and not unfounded, biased slander is what is seen on the page. OneTrueLoki (talk) 14:23pm, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

@OneTrueLoki: What source are you getting your information from? —C.Fred (talk) 20:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

@C.Fred: https://www.8chan.co/faq.html - specifically section two which reads "Are there any global rules regarding content? Only one: Do not post, request, or link to any content illegal in the United States of America. Do not create boards with the sole purpose of posting or spreading such content." Pedophiles are allowed and discussion of pedophilia are allowed as the only illegal aspect of pedophilia is the actual practice or explicit photography of it. If such things get posted, they get removed as per US law. The point of the website isn't pedophilia as the Daily Dot makes it out to be, it's free speech governed only by what is legal and illegal. This allows for pedophiles to discuss their orientation on there, but does not represent the personal beliefs of the site owner, moderators or even over half of the userbase. It certainly does not mean that things such as child pornography and the like are allowed as they are not - the only standard 8chan has is US law. OneTrueLoki (talk) 20:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

@OneTrueLoki: Misplaced Pages prefers secondary sources, such as the Daily Dot, over primary sources, such as 8chan's own FAQ. —C.Fred (talk) 20:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

@C.Fred: Well then, Misplaced Pages prefers inaccurate, biased information. OneTrueLoki (talk) 20:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages prefers what sources say, rather than the truth. If you have reliable sources, you can present them. Else, I don't believe there's much to discuss here. Tutelary (talk) 21:02, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

You have to understand at least where we at 8chan are coming from with this. That article is completely slanderous to the website. "Anti-feminist crusaders"? "Gamergate has been described as a modern culture war between left and right"? "some of the Internet’s right-leaning political activists made 8chan a cause celebre"? Equating harassment of a minor to 'freedom of speech' by assumption? Slandering an entire subreddit as 'dedicated to a celebration of bigotry'? Your honor, this article is slanderous, assuming, biased, and filled with half-truths. The notion of trusting what others say about something to be true falls apart when it is not actually true; and it is clearly not if the (vast, though this is opinionated) majority of the userbase are not pedophiles, if 'Gamergate' is not a "culture war", dubbed by its critics, if the we at 8chan are not 'right-leaning political activists' that 'made 8chan a cause celebre', and if the harassment of Jessi Slaughter is taken out of context to form a half-truth on a matter that the writer of the article wants to bolster up against. Downer77 (talk) 23:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

"Misplaced Pages prefers what people are saying, fabricated or not, not what is actually true." In other words, I can say Hitler was best friends with Tutelary, just as long as I post it on a blog. Thanks, Misplaced Pages. I'll get right on that. Straaado (talk) 22:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

As a correction to the initial statement: Robot 8chan, while a Japanese series, the 52-episode long (per http://ishinomori.wikia.com/Robot_8-chan ) weekly debut of the Toei Fushigi Comedy Series was live-action, not an anime as I initially stated. I mistakenly figured because it was about a robot that it was like Astro Boy, but it's actually a robot interacting with people IRL. Ranze (talk) 23:02, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Reddit

"a source of controversy however is the ability for users to create their own boards, a central criticism to the website" You mean exactly like reddit? That's doesn't sound like a source of controversy. 146.90.29.167 (talk) 19:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

http://www.dailydot.com/politics/8chan-pedophiles-child-porn-gamergate/ <- Check the source. It's related to the pedophilia remarks. People create pedophilic boards and that's a source of controversy for the site by the site administrator for allowing them up. I don't mean to get too offtopic, but reddit allows people to create them, but has rules against them and actively takes them down. 8chan does not, owning to 'free speech'. Tutelary (talk) 20:01, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

By that explanation shouldn't the Reddit article also contain mentions of how it's user created boards host content like pictures of dead kids and holocaust denial? Weedwacker (talk) 23:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I should've mentioned that 8chan has also received media attention for such thing, whereas reddit did for the child stuff but they banned it since then. THe holocaust denial and pictures of dead kids have not received media attention as far as I know. If you have any sources for the most recent stuff, bring it up to at Talk:Reddit, not here. Tutelary (talk) 23:16, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I have found a source for that but I won't link it here, you're right it doesn't belong on this talk page. Still even with sources linking to controversy I hardly think it's appropriate for the lead on an article about a website to contain reference to controversy when it has it's own section for such information. Weedwacker (talk) 23:29, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Page protection

Yes, I'm skeptical about whether 8chan deserves an article. However, at this point, I think the best move is to create an article and see if there's enough material to show it's a notable website. The recent spate of vandalism is not helping with that process. As a result, I've taken the emergency action of semi-protecting the article. —C.Fred (talk) 20:40, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I did request protection at WP:RPP and I support it. I'll be expanding the article pretty soon based on RS. As I said before, there's a lot of them. Tutelary (talk) 20:41, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

biased.

This article is just all out f*cking generalizing. 8Chan has nothing to do with paedophilia in any way. Just because we have a few LEGAL boards made by other people, doesn't mean our entire f*%king website is about pedos. Just stop.

Pardon my french btw

Ajsihbdibidhbhdkjsijsbihbs (talk) 20:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Uh, do you have a suggestion for the article? If so, provide reliable sources. cumguzzler (talk) 21:01, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Seems like a lack of sources for the article's inflammatory claims is the problem here Socialjusticewarrior88 (talk) 21:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Considering how so many users are appearing suddenly today, I suspect sockpuppetry. If you see a problem with an article, try to discuss the issue and support your arguments with reasoning; creating socks will only get you blocked. Dustin (talk) 21:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

@Dustin V. S.: It's not sockpuppetry, someone linked the page to 8chan and everyone there was (rightfully) insulted. You've made an entire community out to be pedophilic criminals when pedophiles are only a portion of the userbase (and staunch anti-pedophiles make up another portion equal in size) and nothing illegal is allowed on the website. The sources you use are one-sided and slanderous, happy to make mountains out of molehills for the sake of sensational journalism. OneTrueLoki (talk) 21:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree with you GushingGrannyFarts (talk) 21:43, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not the one who wrote the article. I was suggesting talk page discussion as several editors were disagreeing/reverting/vandalizing in a short period of time. Dustin (talk) 21:29, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

It should not be that much of a problem for the Misplaced Pages staff. It is clear that the vandalism needs to be removed, along with the suggestive information and misinformation. That includes all lines regarding the generalization of the entire community. (Also, GushingGrannyFarts, try not to edit out my post next time you contribute.) Straaado (talk) 21:45, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

so what? It doesn't matter if you didn't write the article. It's incredibly biased and you should fix it. As said in the OP, 8Chan has absolutely nothing to do with pedophilia. Just because it has a few completely legal boards for paedophiles, doesn't mean the entire website is about pedos. In fact, half of the entire site is also fighting against loli and shota pedo threads being made on /b/. Not only this but your sources are terrible! GushingGrannyFarts (talk) 21:40, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Heavily biased sources being used for misinformation and broad generalizations.

The Daily Dot should be deemed unsuitable for use as a source, as it contains falsified information written for propagandist purposes. Specifically, the article states, "On numerous public forums, 8chan users share graphic images of children, plus links to hardcore child pornography. No content is hidden. Thousands of posts are accessible within two clicks of the homepage.", which demonstrates an apparent lack of knowledge on the subject at hand, and 8chan.co as a whole. However, the article does attempt to inform their audience on the vast majority of the userbase, such as "The site’s biggest boards are not pedophile-centric. Instead, many of 8chan’s most active boards are political.", while failing to discuss the implication of many 8chan users actively and publicly voicing resentment to the 'pedophile-centric' boards, as made evident by daily discussion seen on the site.

Gawker being used as a source is completely laughable. Any research done by the article contributors will show that Gawker is one of the heads of the Gamergate controversy, so using them as a source would be comparable to vandalizing the 9/11 Misplaced Pages page with false information sourced to an article written by Al-Qaeda.

The line "On one such board, users dismiss any idea of complaint against said images, referring to users who disagree against sharing said material as 'moralfags', a term centered around dismissal of said concerns of misconduct or illegal content or plain objection." should be omitted. It demonstrates very strong Confirmation bias, as the majority of users give heavy complaint against those (legal) images. Not only this, the line also adds even more false propagandist definitions. A 'moralfag' is a user who's post clearly shows and represents their own personally held belief of right and wrong, also known as Morality, not "dismissal of concerns of misconduct or illegal content." Any illegal content on 8chan is removed immediately by moderators and volunteers, with reports speeding up this process.

Lastly, the line "The website also hosts boards where pedophiles discuss child grooming techniques and other such things." should also be omitted. This is completely false(ref)"Browse 8chan Boards". Boards on ∞chan. {{cite web}}: External link in |website= (help)(/ref), and a fabrication by the contributor to benefit their stance, showcasing strong Disinformation. Straaado (talk) 21:40, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that Daily Dot is a weak source to make such bold claims and linking people to pedophilia Loganmac (talk) 22:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Daily Dot is actually a standard source. If the link to Frederick Brennan is the issue, I'll promptly remove his name, but I believe hsi commentary on the matter (specifically relating the boards specficially) is relevant. Additionally, for the rest of it, is proper original research and cannot be used. Again, we need sources, not just dissent against what is written. I tried to stick pretty closely to the source. Tutelary (talk) 22:55, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

@Tutelary: His commentary is relevant. Most definitely. Although, "Additionally, for the rest of it, is proper original research and cannot be used. Again, we need sources, not just dissent against what is written." I'm perfectly accepting of not adding extra information. Theres still the issue of the already included unsourced misinformation, You can't leave in irrelevant, false, unsourced information, especially with the drastic weight they carry. It's showing very strong hypocrisy. Straaado (talk) 23:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

What do you feel is unsourced? Tutelary (talk) 23:10, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

@Tutelary: It's in the scary post right above you. Straaado (talk) 23:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

∞chan validity

People seem to be under the impression that this is not a common name used for the site, in spite of it being the only name used on the site itself. I believe we should defer to what the site calls itself and not misquotes and misunderstandings of the site title by organizations who do bad research.

Unfortunately the ∞ character does not seem to co-operate with Google-searching so there is a bias in being unable to use Template:Findsources for it, so even though ∞chan does exist in reports, we can only easily search out the 8chan ones. Ranze (talk) 21:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

There are a vast majority of sources for 8chan, far more than 'infinitechan' (just google that) and go to the news section of Google. '8chan' yields a lot more results than 'infinitechan'. Ranze, also what the website calls itself and its logo is not appropriate to what Misplaced Pages titles the article. WP:COMMONNAME states Misplaced Pages does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article. Thus, your argument of 'what do they call themselves' does not hold weight. Tutelary (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how we can call a source reliable if it can't even get the name right. The ∞ symbol actually IS used on the majority of these news reports anyway, they just show it in the form of the logo (sideways 8) rather than use the text character because most people do not know how to casually type that on keyboards and don't want to go to the trouble of finding it and copying it. Considering most of these reporting sites are clickbait generators, their laziness does not morph 8chan into the common name instead of a circumstantial URL, because they still represent the infinite symbol in pictoral form, which overrides their misquote. Ranze (talk) 22:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

The terms of 'infinitechan' and '8chan' are used interchangable in some reports, but do note that the majority of them only mention 8chan in the capacity of the site's name. (they list infinitechan as the 2nd choice'.) Due to technical restrictions, we can't have two titles for an article. Also, where does 'clickbait generator' fit into Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines? And no, it doesn't. WP:STICKTOSOURCES. Tutelary (talk) 22:59, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Serious BLP

I'm extremely worried about the "free speech" part, it almost sounds like attacking Frederik Brennan and implying he allows pedophilia, this needs a serious rework and should follow website templates. One sentence in and it already states it has met criticism, the article should follow the 4chan article as guidance, as it is now it seems to have been made to attack Frederick Brennan Loganmac (talk) 22:19, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

That was not my intention when I reformed this article. Feel free to reword things to your leisure. I was only trying to follow the sources. Tutelary (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I've reworked the lead and added the websites templates to the right, I don't know how to include the criticisim. ALL sites' criticism usually goes in one section at the end. As in the case of reddit, 4chan. We have to be extra careful not to imply Brennan is guilty of what his users do, since we don't blame Mark Zuckerberg for everything happening on Facebook nor any owners on user-generated sites. Loganmac (talk) 22:40, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

8chan vs. ∞chan

I'm putting this here for people to discuss what we should use. I'm fairly certain it should be "8chan, stylized as ∞chan, pronounced Infinitechan" or a similar wording per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:OFFICIAL and WP:STYLE, you might want to look at further discussion here https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Trademarks/Archive_11

Not that familiar with rules regarding this but I'm fairly certain the titles and brand names should be written in "plain english" and its special characters written in the lead. Examples of this are Client (band) instead of CLIEИT or Korn instead of KoЯn Loganmac (talk) 23:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)