Talk:Internet phenomenon

Categorized by relative date of phenomenon compared to others, from earliest to most recent.

Really. To me it looks like it's almost in alphabetical order, but it's messy. Looks all mixed up. – Kaonashi 13:07, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If Homestar Runner is going to be removed, then I'm tempted to remove Red vs. Blue and OS-tan from the list too, since I believe they are too "comprehensive" to be considered a fad. However, I think the broad term of "internet phenomenon" is more inclusive of more than just "fads" and I think everything there needs to stay.

Also, I think they need to be organized alphabetically, since it's really hard to pin down these things in chronological order.

I completely give up

Every time I try to organize this article alphabetically and clean it up, it keeps getting reverted, entries are deleted and duplicated at will, and...dang it, I give up!

Please note that I am NOT an inexperienced user and these are not the results of inadequete time in the sandbox. These problems almost seem to be more the result of too many people fiddling with the article at once .

I don't know, we've had bugs like you describe before, but it doesn't seem like there were any edit conflicts here. I didn't have any trouble sorting the list.. maybe there's an issue with your computer? Rhobite 05:34, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

This article still needs some serious cleanup, and I suggest to leave that tag there until someone proves to be courageous enough to go and do all the necessary work. Also, after we find a good standard for this article, it should be enforced in order to prevent new additions from corrupting the article's appearance.--Kaonashi 01:37, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I hope I helped in some part by re-categorizing information. Did my best in alphabetizing it as well. If my changes stick, I will try to clean up the style and add more information.--Anonymous 04:53, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Future Reference

I guess this is a good time to point out that any and all future entries should be done in alphabetical order.

more than a fad

I must agree internet phenomenon is more than fad. It's true true that many of them 'fade away' but quite a few of them have more impact then a fad would. Salad Fingers spawned quite a few parodies, making it more then funny flash. Internet phenomenon should be an event that originated and to a degree limited to internet. I think the definition should be modified, or expended.

Martian Kyo 08:35, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I would have changed the definition myself, but I don’t know what it really should be...

Another problem I noticed is that it’s becoming easier to create duplicates...

A last problem with this page is that it is really subjective...

--Anonymous 10:17, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

The more i read this article the more i realized it missed the mark entirely, phenomenon should be something that's more specific to the internet, one of the definitions of phenonmenon i found was ' a remarkable development'. Most of these things aren't, salad fingers and homestead runner are funny but they aren't unusual enough to be classified as such. If I was to rewrite this page i would make it much more general. Internet Phenomenon would be blogs (not a blog but blogs in general), leet speak (hax0rz and all that), wiki technology, filesharing technologies and even MMO's. These are 'remarkable developments' in internet flash movies are funny but hardly a development. This has basically become and internet meme page.

Martian Kyo 16:34, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The phenomena you are listing sound more like Internet tools and Internet subcultures. (Which wouldn't be that bad to add, I suppose). And I guess we could get rid of a lot of the crappy or borderline entries out there. (Which I'm partially to blame for). But I think it would be a mistake to kill entries like the "Hampster Dance" or "JibJab" just because they aren't remarkable developments. For a brief moment in time — and for no logical reason — people went nuts over this stuff. The websites, animations, and videos that gathered huge followings based on word of mouth alone are truly phenomena.

--Anonymous 08:26, May 01, 2005 (UTC)

memetic terminology

Why must we use dubious memetic terminology in articles not directly related to memetics or meme theory? As we all know, it's yet to be seen whether memetics is a proto-science or a pseudo-science, and so, out of respect for this ambiguity, we should treat it with a little more skepticism especially in theoretically objective articles. What must be said can almost always be re-worded without the ideological terms which tacitly promote a still controversial theory. --Maprovonsha172 22:05, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Come to think of it, I think I may have been on the right track in this article. When I explained why changing the wording to uphold the NPOV made sense, there were no rebuttals, yet someone changed the wording back anyway. So I placed the NPOV-template. Perhaps I should do that for all unnecessary usages of memetic terminology, as no Meme Theory advocates seem to be able to comprimise in order to maintain a NPOV on this site.

I may be outnumbered but I'm still right. --Maprovonsha172 23:31, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I haven't rebutted you because I am having difficulty keeping up with your one-man crusade against memetics- unlike you, I actually watch and edit other pages, so that means my time is not monomaniacally focused (but while I am arguing against you, I am glad to see that you are getting a hang of the basics on Wikipedia- kudos, it generally takes people a while to figure out how to use brace templates.) And what you think is 'right' on Wikipedia doesn't really matter- it is what others think right is. If your case can really hold water, I suggest you stop screwing around with any and all articles that mention the word 'meme' and simply take a vote or request arbitration or something of that nature. And this is not a POV or biased article- as used 'meme' is perfectly accurate and widespread, and it even mentions that it is but a concept, providing a link to the meme article where a reader could find more criticism. --maru 00:00, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

You say that the use of the word meme is widespread and accurate, I would admit (as I've seen here) that it's widespread but that doesn't mean that it's accurate. I don't know any proper argument (let alone scientific evidence) that proves memetic's accuracy. I think I've shown on the discussion page to Meme that we have quite a few reasons to question it's accuracy.

Moreover, you say that "it even mentions that it is but a concept." But look at the category 'Internet memes!' There it certainly isn't presented as a concept, but gospel truth! Of course to say that there definitely is such a thing as an 'internet meme' presupposes the existence of memes to begin with which is still a question yet unanswered.

And, I didn't say I think I'm right, because I know that wouldn't matter; I said I am right and I will know that until (when/if) you show me that I'm not. My arguments against using memetic terminology on Wikipedia still stand, and I see no reason for doubting them. It's yet to be seen whether memetics is accurate, or even useful, so using words like meme or counter-meme or meme-plex is actually taking sides on a controversial issue. I'm not trying to be asshole (believe it or not) but I just thought that this is a problem on Wikipedia and I should do my best to put it straight. I really like Wikipedia and I value it as a quick reference very highly but we can't expect anyone to trust it as such if we don't do our best to maintain the NPOV policy, which means being very cautious when dealing with controversial topics like Creationism, Intelligent Design 'theory' and yes, Meme Theory.

P.S.-Thanks for the kudos.Maprovonsha172 01:59, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Heh- presumed correct until proved wrong, right? But I find it difficult to really argue against you since your arguments seem to consist largely of:

• 'But it hasn't been proven yet, and so any mention which doesn't spend several paragraphs reiterating that it is a new and controversial theory is POV and un-Wikpedian!'

and

• 'See a certain forum discussion (except my provided link doesn't go actually there)'.

See why I'm getting a little frustrated? And adding to my frustration is a certain sense that you are not arguing in good faith- it feels like you've come to Wikipedia solely to enforce your views on memes in the face of fairly wide-spread support (I won't say unanimous, since I recollect one user who sorta/kinda agreed with you. But I don't remember which user because you have taken this battle to *so* many diffent pages! I mean, I think I've added about 20 pages, talk included to my watchlist just to watch for your edits!); my sense here is reinforced by looking over your user edits and seeing how many were not meme-related. There appears to be... Hm... (expand the list)... a little Latin stuff, and a little Campbell stuff. That's it.

But one more thing! I've noticed in my own comments, and other people's comments, that we seem to differentiate between two meanings of 'meme'. The first one is simply a descriptive term, dealing with 'ideas which are popular and get spread alot'. This seems to be the meaning most meant, like in 'Internet Phenomenon' or 'Internet memes'. It seems perfectly harmless and NPOV to me, as it is descriptive, like 'apple' or 'bicycle'. Is your beef with this definition?

Or is it with the more elaborate definitions, the ones which see 'meme's as replicators equal to genes, the ones which form the basis for a nascent field, the sorta definition/meaning intended by Blackmore, Dawkins, Wright and etc. ? The definitions which try to explain many features of humanity and how it deals with information, and its cultures and religions and organizations? Is your beef with this group of definitions (I say group rather than a single definition since the people working in memetics are not exactly as in sync as photons in a laser, savvy?)?

I think if we can separate this out and analyze it, we can avoid a wasteful edit war, with all its concomitants. If you are against the second, I think we can work it out, but if you oppose both definitions, then we've got a problem.

Please respond and clarify this issue; I really don't want to engage in a war- I'd rather work out a compromise and not sour a potentially useful contributor, but I will if I have to. --maru 02:16, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

What maru said. The usage of the word "meme" in its Internet context is an indisputable fact. Now if you'd like to work on putting a paragraph in the "memetics" page which explains the semantic difference between its strict scientific definition and the popular definition it's taken on, I would absolutely be in favor of working with you on that. I think obviously there's a disconnect here. You need to understand that the word "meme" has evolved beyond that strict "memetics" definition – and whether you like it or not, it's a term in common, widespread usage around the world and is not POV in any way. --FCYTravis 04:38, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I've answered many of these in my most recent post on the Talk:Memes discussion page. As far as the link, I didn't know it didn't work. The link I put on the Memetics discussion page does work; I'm sorry for any confusion about that. --Maprovonsha172 14:32, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, well, we'll continue the discussion there. (I noticed that the working one was on the Meme page just a little while ago myself. I woulda noticed sooner, but I assumed they were all broken, which only further added to my frustration.) --maru 16:13, 12 May 2005 (UTC)